Hacker News Reader

Considering how much I got downvoted no I don't want to comment more about this. But I'll let you ponder why while using rust has you could get a use after free sometimes https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-4572...

View on HN

Here's the commit: https://github.com/jeromefroe/lru-rs/pull/121/commits/416a2d....

I don't think this does much for your initial claim. Take the most generous reading you can--Rust isn't any better at preventing UAF than C/C++. That doesn't make safe C/C++ a thing, it means that Rust isn't an appropriate solution.

You missed the point. Just like the author did when he disqualified all the C++ tools

Writing unsafe code and removing tools "because production" gets you unsafe code as shown in that rust cve

With Zig and Rust you have to explicitly opt-out with `ReleaseFast` and `unsafe` respectively, that makes a big difference. Rust has the added safety that you cannot (to my knowledge at least) gain performance by opting out with a flag at compile-time, it has to be done with optimized `unsafe` blocks directly in the code.

Lazy C++ is unsafe, lazy Zig is safe-ish, lazy Rust is safe. Given how lazy most programmers are, I consider that a strong argument against C++.

> Rust isn't any better at preventing UAF than C/C++

Maybe I'm missing something here?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com