[d5lt5]

For someone who is not a rust dev, would you mind giving me an example of this: "Nope, this is demonstrably false because Rust has its own invariants around its types and the codebase is violating a lot of them."

[endospore]

Aw I feel quite sorry for using the word "demonstrable" while not intending to demonstrate anything, in order to avoid any contributions to the project. I apologize for that.

That being said I've found a case that doesn't do much harm even if it's fixed, and is technically not my contribution. You may take a look at that:

https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/pull/30794

[LtWorf]

An "unsafe" in rust is like an axiom in mathematics. You can use to prove higher level theorems but it has to make sense.

The second that you start to introduce nonsensical axioms (or bugs in unsafe sections) all your proven correct theorems will be worthless.

[whytevuhuni]

But code is not mathematics, so incorrect code is not worthless, it’s just worth less.

It’ll most likely still do 99% of the things people need it to do, there’ll be a an issue created for that broken 1%, and eventually it’ll be iterated upon and fixed.

Unless you’re working on a security boundary of course, there you should treat it like maths.

[LtWorf]

Rust doesn't check for logical errors, it checks for memory errors. So every single issue in an unsafe section is a potential CVE.

[whytevuhuni]

Of course, but even the presence of CVEs does not make software worthless, it just makes it worth less.

[LtWorf]

You don't seem to understand what I'm talking about.

bad axiom -> worthless theorem.

bad unsafe section -> verified safe section is actually not safe.

[whytevuhuni]

I’ve understood the distinction. I just don’t like you equating “actually not safe” with “worthless”.