Hacker News Reader

Comment by kentonv | Hacker News Reader

I think almost everyone agrees new greenfield projects should not choose C/C++, now that Rust has matured enough and covers essentially the same use cases.

But realistically that only solves a tiny fraction of the problem, since realistically new greenfield projects started today will likely take 10+ years to become widely used, if they do at all.

WebP was written at a time when C/C++ was still the only viable language in which to write an image compression library. Saying "things like this should be written in Rust!" just doesn't actually do anything to make software like WebP secure. Improving fuzzers and sandboxing might.

View on HN

> realistically new greenfield projects started today will likely take 10+ years to become widely used, if they do at all.

I'm pretty sure that even now a lot speaks against using rust for greenfield projects precisely for that reason: few people want to integrate Rust into their build chain. You basically always have to have a compiler that's 1 release old or otherwise you cannot compile new Rust software like the very widely used time crate.

If you are a new and unproven format, do you really want to bear that hit? You could make two implementations, one in C and one in Rust, but that will mean you spread your probably quite scarce engineers over two projects.

Heh. Well, speaking as the lead engineer of a large C++ systems project that sadly started a liiiiitle bit to early to use Rust (the Cloudflare Workers runtime), I'd say our attitude is the other way around: We basically refuse to bring in any kind of C/C++ dependency unless it's something used in Chrome (implying they've vetted it). We are much more willing to bring in Rust dependencies, even though they're harder for us to invoke due to the language barrier.

That's great, but the fact that the author of this article didn't mention memory safe languages is disturbing and an indication that not everyone is aware!

The author is the former lead of Google Project Zero, and the article is an in depth look at a low level bug.

He’s certainly aware of memory safe programming.

That's a really good policy, and what I said above does not reflect my private opinion but the opinions of a lot of people that decoder projects target. You are in a way more controlled environment.

For dav1d I heard that one of the reasons why C was chosen was precisely this portability concern. format decoders are usually quite low level components and can get integrated into all sorts of environments. I'm sure there is someone out there who made a visual studio project with a 3 year old VS version with dav1d inside for some embedded project. For such devs, Rust is a way harder sell.

You can write your implementation in Rust and expose a C ABI, and anyone using your library doesn't have to know or care that the internals use Rust. That's pretty much the whole point of Rust, otherwise you'd just use OCaml.

  You basically always have to have a compiler that's 1 release
  old or otherwise you cannot compile new Rust software like the
  very widely used time crate.

That's an interesting example as the time crate stagnated for quite a while and even the current version only requires Rust 1.67 or newer. The current Rust version is 1.72.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com