[howinteresting]

While yes, that's theoretically possible, do you have data to establish this? For example, having small sections of the code be marked as unsafe would allow for greater scrutiny of those sections. Also, unsafe access is more annoying to perform in Rust than in C or C++, so maybe that would have acted as a deterrent (or at least the code would have been profiled to make sure that unsafe access was worth it).

https://security.googleblog.com/2022/12/memory-safe-language... shows improvements at scale.

[ninkendo]

Elsewhere in the comments someone linked to this: https://dropbox.tech/infrastructure/lossless-compression-wit...

It looks like dropbox experimented with disabling bounds checks in their huffman coding impl, and found that using the unsafe pattern increased throughput from 224 MB/s to 249 MB/s (11%-ish faster.) We don’t even need to hypothesize about whether webp would have elminated bounds checking, we can see that other companies arrived at the same conclusion: Disabling it can be worth it if you’re quite sure you’ve gotten the up-front checking right. We can imagine that if Dropbox went to prod with the unchecked huffman implementation (never mind that that article isn’t about webp in particular), we could imagine they could easily have the same bug. And I don’t think a naive code review saying “unsafe is bad” would have stopped them from doing it: they clearly did the work to show why it’s worth it.

[hot_gril]

The risk probably doesn't matter for their use case because they're doing all this datacenter-scale image conversion on processes separate from the main logic (and likely not even on the same machines). Unlike in a phone's web browser or something, where it's 11% speedup with ??% added risk.

It's already common for PC apps to split potentially unsafe rendering into subprocesses, like in Chrome. If you don't want to pay the full IPC toll, there's shared memory. In theory should be about the same speed as inlined unsafe code, right? What if Rust's "unsafe" blocks could do this for you?

[howinteresting]

Thank you.