I’m getting fed up about all those articles “rust x something: the future?”, “I rewrote <cli tool> in rust it’s now memory safe”. I get the rust safeties and all, but that doesn’t automatically make everything great, right ? You can still write removed code in any language that can RM -rf all your disk, or let security gaps here and there without intending to.
It does make stuff great. Even Microsoft is trying out Rust in their removed operating system because apparently 30% of all CVEs are related to, you guessed it, memory issues. And Rust will most likely solve them all.
Even the Linux kernel has Rust code in it now. If Rust was not of importance, why would the Linux kernel get rusty? Especially Linus Torvalds is very strict about these things.
Sure, bad code rewritten in Rust does not make it any better than it originally was.
Plus you get C-like speed with good syntax and memory safety, what more could you ask for?
Yes security issues will remain a problem no matter what language was used. You are talking about the possibility of a logic flaw being there, whereas rust ‘just’ prevents memory corruption.
Which is the more common security issue? Memory corruption by a mile. That’s why many are excited by the rust rewrite
So you’re right it isn’t literally everything, but I’m not sure what would be. What would make you not fed up about it?
I think I’m more fed up with people making those quotes “rust will change everything” when, in fact, it will rule out many if not most memory corruption as you said. Reading your comment, I see now it’s the mentality “everything need to be in rust” that bothers me the most, which in fact means “rust can bring memory safety” and not “rust will replace everything”. Alas I’m seeing it used times and times again as the latter instead of the former.
I’m getting fed up about all those articles “rust x something: the future?”, “I rewrote <cli tool> in rust it’s now memory safe”. I get the rust safeties and all, but that doesn’t automatically make everything great, right ? You can still write removed code in any language that can RM -rf all your disk, or let security gaps here and there without intending to.
It does make stuff great. Even Microsoft is trying out Rust in their removed operating system because apparently 30% of all CVEs are related to, you guessed it, memory issues. And Rust will most likely solve them all. Even the Linux kernel has Rust code in it now. If Rust was not of importance, why would the Linux kernel get rusty? Especially Linus Torvalds is very strict about these things. Sure, bad code rewritten in Rust does not make it any better than it originally was. Plus you get C-like speed with good syntax and memory safety, what more could you ask for?
Yes security issues will remain a problem no matter what language was used. You are talking about the possibility of a logic flaw being there, whereas rust ‘just’ prevents memory corruption.
Which is the more common security issue? Memory corruption by a mile. That’s why many are excited by the rust rewrite
So you’re right it isn’t literally everything, but I’m not sure what would be. What would make you not fed up about it?
I think I’m more fed up with people making those quotes “rust will change everything” when, in fact, it will rule out many if not most memory corruption as you said. Reading your comment, I see now it’s the mentality “everything need to be in rust” that bothers me the most, which in fact means “rust can bring memory safety” and not “rust will replace everything”. Alas I’m seeing it used times and times again as the latter instead of the former.