[uecker]

I think the spin that Rust is necessarily the way forward is what is wrong. IMHO Rust has severe problems and what is considered "modern" is mostly taste. We have seen the same thing in the past with a push towards C++, Java, managed languages. What is new is that the free software movement is now controlled so much by corporate interests that some of these changes are pushed through aggressively against the interests of other parts of the community. In the past, if you wanted something changed and there was no agreement, you created a fork and if it was truly better it was eventually adopted by the majority. Nowadays, the companies which fund most of the development aggressively pursue their interests and the part of the community that disagrees is forced out. This justified by with suitable propaganda "not willing to adapt", etc. The whole point of free software should be that I do not have to adapt to some companies's idea of what is modern, if I do not want to. This is why I fled from Microsoft.

[tialaramex]

> I think the spin that Rust is necessarily the way forward is what is wrong.

I haven't seen this from Rust. Obviously lots of us think that Rust is the way forward for us but I think the problem you're talking about is that nobody offered any alternatives you liked better and that's not on Rust.

If Bob is ordering pizza for everybody who wants one, it is not the case that "Pizza is necessarily the way forward", and it's not Bob's fault that you can't have sliders, I think if you want sliders you're going to need to order them yourself and "Pizza is the way forward" is merely the default when you don't and people are hungry.

Dave Abraham's Hylo is an example of somebody offering to order sushi in this analogy. It's not yet clear whether Dave knows a Sushi place that delivers here, or how much Sushi would be but that's what having another way forward could look like.

In C++ they've got profiles, which is, generously, "Concepts of a plan" for a way forward and in C... I mean, it's not your focus, but nobody is looking at this right? Maybe Fil-C is your future? I note that Fil-C doesn't work on these obsolete targets either.

[mirashii]

This whole it used to be different thing is looking back with rose tinted glasses. It’s always been the case that project maintainers were able to make choices that the community didn’t necessarily agree with, corporate backed contributors or not, and it’s still a possibility to fork and try to prove out that the other stance is better.

Nobody is being forced out of the community, you can fork and not adopt the changes if you want. Thats the real point of free software, that you have the freedom to make that choice. The whole point of free software was never that the direction of the software should be free from corporate control in some way, the maintainers of a project have always had the authority to make decisions about their own project, whether individual or corporate or a mix.

[uecker]

The point of freedom in software is certainly that I can create my own fork. And individual projects a maintainer can certainly do what he wants. But it is still worrying if in community projects such as Debian when decisions that come with a cost to some part of the community are pushed through without full consensus. It would be certainly not the first time. systemd was similar and for similar reasons (commercial interests by some key stakeholders), and I would argue that Debian did suffer a lot from how badly this was handled. I do not think the community ever got as healthy and vibrant as it was before this. So it t would be sad if this continues.

[solidsnack9000]

...it is still worrying if in community projects such as Debian when decisions that come with a cost to some part of the community are pushed through without full consensus.

What are some concrete cases you can point to where a decision was made with full consensus? Literally everyone agreed? All the users?

I'm not sure many projects have ever been run that way. I'm sure we've all heard of the Benevolent Dictator for Life (BDfL). I'm sure Linus has made an executive decision once in a while.

[kelnos]

> pushed through without full consensus

Requiring full consensus for decisions is a great way to make no decisions.

[Klonoar]

> are pushed through without full consensus

You describe it that way, but that's not how the world in general works in practice. You do things based on majority.

[uecker]

No, this is not how you do things in a functioning community. You do things based on societal contracts that also protect the interests of minorities.

[Klonoar]

I cannot fathom using the rest of my Saturday attempting to break down the level of spin you’re trying to play at here.

[throwaway7356]

> systemd was similar and for similar reasons (commercial interests by some key stakeholders)

False claims don't really make the claims about the evils of Rust more believable.

[mrkeen]

> if you wanted something changed and there was no agreement, you created a fork and if it was truly better it was eventually adopted by the majority.

This assumes there wasn't agreement.

And if so, what would 'eventually adopted by the majority' mean. Is this announcement not that?

[throwingrocks]

> The whole point of free software should be that I do not have to adapt to some companies's idea of what is modern, if I do not want to.

This hasn’t changed.

[crote]

> I think the spin that Rust is necessarily the way forward is what is wrong.

Well, what's the alternative? The memory safety problem is real, I don't think there is any doubt about that.

C/C++ is a dead end: the community has thoroughly rejected technical solutions like the Circle compiler, and "profiles" are nothing more than a mirage. They are yet again trying to make a magical compiler which rejects all the bad code and accepts all the good code without making any code changes, which of course isn't going to happen.

Garbage collection is a huge dealbreaker for the people still on C/C++. This immediately rules out the vast majority of memory-safe languages. What is left is pretty much only Zig and Rust. Both have their pros and cons, but Rust seems to be more mature and has better community adoption.

The way I see it, the pro-memory-safety crowd is saying "There's a giant hole in our ship, let's use Rust to patch it", and the anti-Rust crowd yells back "I don't like the color of it, we shouldn't repair the hole until someone invents the perfect solution". Meanwhile, the ship is sinking. Do we let the few vocal Rust haters sink the ship, or do we tell them to shut up or show up with a better alternative?

[zozbot234]

Basically correct, but Zig is not a memory safe language. It may be an improvement wrt. syntax over C, and its standard library facilities may be genuinely better than Rust's wrt. writing unsafe code, but it's simply not interesting from a safety perspective. I'm sure that even the most rabid Zig advocates would readily acknowledge this point.

> Garbage collection is a huge dealbreaker for the people still on C/C++.

The problem is not so much GC itself, but more like pervasive garbage collection as the only memory management strategy throughout the program. Tracing GC is a legit memory management strategy for some programs or parts of a program.

[pron]

> it's simply not interesting from a safety perspective

The reason memory safety is interesting in the first place (for practical, not theoretical reasons) is that it is a common cause of security vulnerabilities. But spatial memory safety is a bigger problem than temporal memory safety, and Zig does offer spatial memory safety. So if Rust's memory safety is interesting, then so is the memory safety Zig offers.

I'm a rabid software correctness advocate, and I think that people should acknowledge that correctness, safety (and the reasons behind it) are much more complex than the binary question of what behaviours are soundly disallowed by a language (or ATS advocates would say that from that their vantage point, Rust is just about as unsafe as C, and so is completely uninteresting from that perspective).

The complexity doesn't end with spatial vs temporal safety. For example, code review has been found to be one of the most effective correctness measures, so if a language made code reviews easier, it would be very interesting from a correctness/security perspective.

[Measter]

Zig only does bounds checking by default in Debug and ReleaseSafe builds. If you build with ReleaseFast or ReleaseSmall it will happily do an out of bounds read: https://godbolt.org/z/733PxPEPY

[pron]

That's a matter of how policy is set. You can set it to on or off for a particular function, too. The point is that language offers sound spatial safety just as much as Rust does (and both allow you to turn it on or off in particular pieces of code).

[the_duke]

Defaults and ecosystem approach matter a lot, though.

The whole Rust ecosystem is heavily biased towards prioritising memory safety and "safe by construction" .

This is evident in the standard library, in how crates approach API design, what the compilation defaults are, ...

In 6+ years of using Rust the only time I had to deal with segfaults was when working on low level wrappers around C code or JIT compilation.

Zig has some very interesting features, but the way they approach language and API design leaves a lot of surface area that makes mistakes easy.

[throwaway17_17]

I am very much inclined to agree with you, but do you have any sourcing for a claim that spatial is a bigger problem with regards to security vulnerabilities? Every time I feel like posting similar sentiments I just know that a reply linking to an article about how Microsoft and/or Google claim 70% of bugs are memory safety issues will be posted. Both of the ‘studies’ (code surveys) seem to claim use-after-free make up the majority of those bugs.

[pron]

Mitre place spatial memory safety higher on the list: https://cwe.mitre.org/top25/archive/2024/2024_cwe_top25.html (also >3x KEV)

[davemp]

Rust technically isn’t a memory safe language the second you use “unsafe”. Rust advocates tend to pretend the can have their cake and eat it too when comparing it to other low level languages. No, just because you have the word unsafe next to the scary parts doesn’t make it okay.

I’ve written a good chunk of low level/bare metal rust—unsafe was everywhere and extremely unergonomic. The safety guarantees of Rust are also much weaker in such situations so that’s why I find Zig very interesting.

No oob access, no wacky type coercion, no nullptrs solves such a huge portion of my issues with C. All I have to do is prove my code doesn’t have UAF (or not if the program isn’t critical) and I’m basically on par with Rust with much less complexity.

[dvtkrlbs]

The point of unsafe is you have small bubbles of unsafe which you can verify rigorously or use tools like Miri to make sure they upheld and you build safe abstraction on top of that unergonomic part. Looking at embedded-hal and even to extreme embassy you can see the value of it. If you don't do any abstraction I definitely agree Rust is not fun to write at all.

[zozbot234]

The safety guarantees of Rust the language around unsafe are just as good as C or Zig if you use the appropriate facilities (raw pointers, MaybeUninit, UnsafeCell/Cell, Option for nullability, Pin<> etc). Sometimes this is made unnecessarily difficult by standard library code that expects all the guarantees of ordinary Safe Rust instead of accepting more lenient input (e.g. freely aliasable &Cell<T>'s), but such cases can be addressed as they're found.

[davemp]

My point is that it’s easier to write correct Zig code than correct unsafe Rust. Raw pointers can be null in rust so you should use NonNull<T> but there’s aliasing rules that are easy to mess up. And difficultly with the stdlib as you mentioned.

I don’t actually mind Rust when I was able to write in safe user land, but for embedded projects I’ve had a much better time with Zig.

[cardanome]

> Meanwhile, the ship is sinking.

No it is not. We have a lot of amazing and rock solid software written in C and C++. Stuff mostly works great.

Sure, things could be better but there is no reason why we need to act right now. This is a long term decisions that doesn't need to be rushed.

> What is left is pretty much only Zig and Rust.

We had Ada long before Rust and it is a pretty amazing language. Turns out security isn't that important for many people and C++ is good enough for many projects apparently.

There is also D, Nim, Odin and so on.

> Garbage collection is a huge dealbreaker

It isn't. We had Lisp Machines in the 80s and automatic garbage collection has vastly improved these days. So I wouldn't rule those out either.

In short, no the ship is not sinking. There are many options to improve things. The problems is once you depend on rust it will be hard to remove so it is better to think things through because rushing to adopt it.

[uecker]

While memory safety is important, I do not believe it is now suddenly so important that it needs now needs to be solved quickly at all cost. There are far more pressing issues. I also do not think at all that C/C++ are dead end. In fact, I think it would be far more cost effective to continue to improve safety of C and C++ code via gradual improvement than adding another language into the mix. The reason is that complexity and the burden of long-term maintenance is the main issue we have in free software, and Rust makes this worse rather than better. Case in point, the fact that I have limited security updates because of some Rust video codec in the dependency chain hurts my security far far more than the fact that it might prevent some memory safety issue: https://www.debian.org/releases/trixie/release-notes/issues.... I think this is what people are missing. They over-exaggerate the important of memory safety over rather mundane issues which are actually far more important. I have never known anybody who was directly affected by a security issues caused by memory safety, I know plenty who were affected because their software was not up-to-date.

[mkl]

English link: https://www.debian.org/releases/trixie/release-notes/issues....

> The Debian infrastructure currently has problems with rebuilding packages of types that systematically use static linking. With the growth of the Go and Rust ecosystems it means that these packages will be covered by limited security support until the infrastructure is improved to deal with them maintainably.

[solidsnack9000]

What are realistic options for "gradual improvement" of memory safety in C and C++?

My first thought is that it is kind of like talking about gradually improving manual memory allocation in Java. C and C++ are fundamentally memory unsafe; it's part of their design, to offer complete control over memory in a straightforward, direct way.

[Mond_]

> IMHO Rust has severe problems and what is considered "modern" is mostly taste.

Really? As opposed to e.g. C or C++ (as the most important languages which Rust is competing with)? Sure, taste plays into everything, but I think a lot of people work with Rust since it's genuinely a better tool.

I hear you on free software being controlled by corporate interests, but that's imo a separate discussion from how good Rust is as a language.

[Antibabelic]

Ada and SPARK fulfilled the promise of a safe systems language decades ago without making most of the mistakes Rust does. Rust has its strong sides, sure, but it's far from the only shop in town. The GCC happens to include an Ada compiler as well.

[dvtkrlbs]

The problem is they forgot about making the language approachable so it lives in its bubble for safety criticial usage (which Rust kinda starting to eat its lunch from with the certified Rust fork)

[Xylakant]

If you’re referring to Ferrocene with the certified Rust fork, then I’d like to make the minor correction that we don’t consider Ferrocene a true fork, but rather a downstream distribution of the Rust projects compiler. There are very little changes to the compiler itself. Most relevant changes are documentation, build process and different test coverage - we do test architectures that upstream does not.

[dvtkrlbs]

Yeah fork is a bad word for it. Sorry about that.

[Antibabelic]

What do you find unapproachable about Ada?

[dvtkrlbs]

For starter it looks completely alien my real introduction to Ada was with this article comparing it to Rust on solving advent of code [1] but it gives me that feeling when I try to read Haskell code (not that extreme). I did not actually give it a real chance though but its user base even more niche than Rust so idk. It has really cool properties (being able to define n bit datatypes is nice) but it is also leans to more on the imperative side so that also does not interest me.

[1] https://github.com/johnperry-math/AoC2023/blob/master/More_D...

[Antibabelic]

I wouldn't call it alien. If you've ever written even a little bit of Pascal, you should feel right at home in Ada.

[solidsnack9000]

What are those mistakes?

It seems like Ada more or less has to have memory safety bolted on -- that is what SPARK does -- and it's not clear that Ada's bias towards OO is better than Rust's bias towards functional programming.

Are you talking about features like type inference (so the Rust code could be less clear, since types are not always written out)?

[pjmlp]

And just recently Modula-2.

[einpoklum]

That is a 'subtle whataboutism' reply, actually...

you see, GP did not speak in relative terms, but absolutely: They believe Rust has problems. They did not suggest that problems with programming languages are basically all fungible, that we should sum up all problems, compare different languages, and see which ones come out on top.

[noosphr]

I'm very happy with common lisp for fast code.

Of course most people aren't smart enough for the language so they have to use inferior algol languages like rust.

[AlotOfReading]

No need to sully CL with this kind of elitism. Any language you need to be a genius to use is a bad language. That's one of the fundamental issues with C. We're all imperfect idiots some of the time and one instance of undefined behavior breaks any guarantees the language gives you.

[noosphr]

I find that languages with a high intellectual barrier to entry are much more pleasant places to be since people like the OP can't understand them and we never have people try to bully us into doing things _the right way_.

This is someone who says things like

>It's important for the project as whole to be able to move forward and rely on modern tools and technologies and not be held back by trying to shoehorn modern software on retro computing devices.

While on company time.

[tclancy]

> since people like the OP can't understand them and we never have people try to bully us

Yes well, glad to hear there’s no one bullying people there!

[lsaferite]

I don't normally upvote snark, but... Bravo.

Elitism is it's own form of bullying and needs to be treated as such.

I don't particularly like large swaths of humanity, but I also try hard not to be elitist towards them either. I'm not always successful, but I make a strong effort as my family raised me to be respectful to everyone, even if you don't personally like them.

[noosphr]

I'm glad you understand how self defense works.

[bitwize]

Name me another language that offers the memory safety and deterministic runtime guarantees that Rust does, eliminating entire classes of bugs, the same integration with existing C code that Rust does, and enjoys the same community and pool of eager contributors that Rust does.

I'll wait.