[selfmodruntime]

Alright, we’ve arrived at a point where I‘m going to ask you for a source. You‘re being willfully ignorant. I explained that „unsafe“ is not used in the Rust community like you think it is, and that the compiler provides verification of safe Rust types in unsafe blocks.

The only times I‘ve used unsafe code is for FFI and very rarely on bare metal machines.

A common Rust programmer will never use unsafe. They will use safe abstractions by the standard library. There is no need for direct use of unsafe in application code, and only very rarely in library code.

In fact, [1] reports that most unsafe calls in libraries are FFI calls into existing C/C++ code or system calls.

[1]: https://foundation.rust-lang.org/news/unsafe-rust-in-the-wil...

[jonathanstrange]

It's funny because you provide the source yourself: "[...] 34.35% make a direct function call into another crate that uses the unsafe keyword. [...] Nearly 20% of all crates have at least one instance of the unsafe keyword, a non-trivial number."

That's a lot of unsafe code for an allegedly safe language. Of course, most of it calls into system libraries. I never claimed or insinuated anything to the contrary (except perhaps in your imagination). But if you compare that to typical Ada code, the latter is much safer. Ada programmers try to do more things in Ada, probably because many of them need to write high integrity software.

Anyway, Rust offers nothing of value for me. It's overengineered and the languages I use are already entirely memory safe. Languages are mere tools, if it suits you well, continue using your Rust. No problem for me. By the way, I welcome when people re-write C++ code in Rust. Rust is certainly better than that, but that's a low-hanging fruit!

[selfmodruntime]

> But if you compare that to typical Ada code, the latter is much safer. Ada programmers try to do more things in Ada, probably because many of them need to write high integrity software.

Well, since Rust is explicitly a system programming language, you would expect it to call into underlying systems more often, hence the use of unsafe.

The difference is this: Like all programming languages, Rust lives close to the metal. The „unsafe“ keyword is merely a marker that a system call might happen here, which might be inherently unsafe (think of C‘s localization methods which are not thread safe).

That‘s it. You can call ADA more safer but it still has to adhere to the underlying complexity of the system it runs on, and upon interaction with it via FFI calls it will be just as unsafe, just without a marker.

The low hanging fruit is exactly what Rust is made for. It‘s explicitly overengineered for that one use case, where GC languages can not be used for whatever reasons. It lives in the twilight zone between a GC and calling alloc/free yourself.

I disagree with people rewriting everything in Rust that could be simpler and better done with Python/Csharp/Go/etc. But if you need to work with manual memory management or concurrency with shared references, Rust is certainly your best bet.

[ArtixFox]

Wait just 20% thats a low number damn. You said a lot and i was expecting...idk, 50%?

If Ada was used in domains where rust is used, like desktop applications, servers, high perf stuff, it would also do unsafe stuff you could never verify using spark.

But instead it is used in microcontrollers with runtimes provided by adacore and other vendors. Can you fully know if those pieces of code are 100% verified and safe? the free ones are not. atleast the free x86 one.

How ridiculous. The language you use is not memory safe btw. unchecked_deallocation can be easily used without any pragmas iirc. You need to enable spark_mode which will restrict you to an even smaller subset! You cannot even safely write a doubly linked list in it![you can with great pain in rust] [with less pain in Frama-C] [never tried ats]