Does Rust programming language practically provide 'memory safety', as they say? Or it is just in theory?
Any Rust lang experters here?

What does a person with 10 years of experience with C/C++ say about Rust? Anybody on Mastodon?

Rust isn't worth the disk space. (Not a rust expert, but 10+ years using C, C++, among others)

The recent rust projects I've compiled have eaten close to a gig in disk (500 megs of dependencies), maybe that issue is more of a 'cargo bad' reaction. Rust itself is around 500 megs, 've had problems with running on other architectures...
tcc + musl comes to under 10M. rust makes gcc + glibc (200M) look light.

@everlastingrocks more errors with more code... With so much of extra code how does Rust talk about safety?

@epic @ShadyFennec @waterbear @vurpo @hj @vaartis


@EdwardTorvalds @everlastingrocks Yeah, the dependencies weight and cargo are another bad side of rust, especially coming from a C/C++ background. And yet another jab at Rust from someone who loves it: even though it's inherently safer, with a lot of guards around the possibly bad practice, some libraries (some of them even super popular !!) go out of their way to program "à la C", using heaps of explicitely unsafe code, for some reason.

So the same talks about dependency safety with node begin to creep into Cargo and Rust, with good reason. The language itself is made to promote memory safety and safe concurrency, but if library programmers don't uphold these promises, the guarantees are lost!

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Generalistic Mastodon instance for open-minded people. Instance Mastodon généraliste pour personnes ouvertes d'esprit.