Programming

17454 readers

142 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

145

C++ creator rebuts White House warning (www.infoworld.com)

submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

97 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Python is memory safe? Can't you access/address memory with C bindings?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 22 points 8 months ago

That's true in C as well, though. This is what people mean when they say things like "undefined behavior can result in time travel".

The difference is twofold:

Rust's rules for valid unsafe code are not completely formalized yet. This means that there are open questions about whether particularly complex patterns in unsafe code will be guaranteed by future versions of the compiler to be sound. Conversely, the C and C++ spec are generally sufficient to determine whether any particular piece of code has undefined behavior, even if actually analyzing it to find out is not possible automatically using existing static analysis tools.
Because safe Rust is so strict about what it permits, the compiler is able to make more aggressive optimizations; in theory, this could indeed cause undefined behavior to be "worse" at runtime than a comparable situation in a globally-unsafe language. I'm unaware of any actual examples of that phenomenon, though.