[user3939382]

Maybe the problem is the way we think of dynamic memory. “Oh I don’t know what my maximum size for this is going to be, everything has to be dynamic” Is that really true? Is it really the end of the world for programs to declare maximum acceptable sizes for their inputs, and after that error out or use a ring buffer? If sizes were known you could design around that when using them. Your ram bank is finite, why is every layer inside of it then designed to pretend to be infinite? The rust thing strikes me as a massive waste of time and doesn’t solve the fundamental problem of modeling our programs correctly for reality which is finite system resources, and not just memory. c.f. Chrome loading 4 GB models onto people’s machines.

[ok123456]

This is exactly how people thought before 1995. Then everyone started "smashing the stack for fun and profit." In the end, you're trading one set of bugs (dynamic memory bugs and hard to reliably exploit) for another (overflow and easy to reliably exploit).

[megous]

Yeah, you still have to check for the limits, not just declare them. Then have fun smashing anything.

[account42]

> Is it really the end of the world for programs to declare maximum acceptable sizes for their inputs, and after that error out

It's supremely annoying when you run into arbitrary limits like that as a user. Often it's like a deliberate expiration date for the software as the world moves on to larger files/etc.