Memory Safety Absolutists
5 hours ago
- The article discusses the claim that Rust is unsafe due to its 'unsafe' keyword, despite its drastically lower memory safety vulnerability density (0.2 per MLOC) compared to C/C++ (1000 per MLOC).
- Fil-C, a new technology, can make C/C++ code memory safe by using GC and InvisiCaps, but it has trade-offs like ABI incompatibility, potential slowdowns, and reliance on garbage collection.
- The author criticizes memory safety absolutists, especially Fil-C's creator and Zig's developer, who dismiss Rust as unsafe while promoting Fil-C, ignoring practical trade-offs and Rust's proven safety in real-world projects.
- A pragmatic approach is advocated: using Rust for programs that cannot adopt Fil-C (e.g., due to GC or ABI issues), and encouraging Fil-C for projects where its trade-offs are acceptable, rather than forcing a single solution.
- The author argues that memory safety absolutism should apply consistently, criticizing C/C++ and non-Fil Zig as much as Rust, and that preventing most issues in most programs is better than demanding perfection.
- Even with Fil-C turning vulnerabilities into crashes, the high crash rate from C/C++ code (1000 per MLOC) highlights that Rust's balance of safety and practicality is valuable for many use cases.