[OkayPhysicist]

NIFs are dangerous, ports are not. Basically a NIF runs in the same memory space as the BEAM, so misbehavior of the NIF can crash the entire application. On the other hand, they have wildly better performance than ports, which have to operate through STDI/O.

The Rust / BEAM memory sharing problem does exist, but it's not nearly as bad as in more traditional C NIFs, because almost all C programs leak memory due to bad manual memory management. Hence all the buzz about Elixir+Rust.

[toast0]

I personally include port drivers in with ports, which gives you the same level of shared runtime environment as NIFs, with the benefits and drawbacks. Sometimes it makes more sense to interface as a port rather than as a function. Of course, sometimes it makes more sense to interface as a C-node rather than either; then you can be on a totally isolated machine, and the C-node can even crash or otherwise disable the whole OS and your Erlang node will be fine.

[OkayPhysicist]

What's the benefit of a port driver over a NIF?

[toast0]

A port driver can participate in the BEAM event loop, adding filehandles that get called back when they're ready.

It's a more appropriate choice for something that's asynchronous, although NIFs do have ways to fill the same role. A port driver would probably be a better choice for specalty networking that ERTS doesn't provide (raw packets? netgraph, etc).

[throwawaymaths]

ports can be dangerous! One time my server lost performance because of a lot of zombie processes.