Citation needed. The empiric evidence I’ve seen has shown the opposite.
Citation needed. The empiric evidence I’ve seen has shown the opposite.
https://rustfoundation.org/media/unsafe-rust-in-the-wild-not...
https://thenewstack.io/unsafe-rust-in-the-wild/
https://github.com/sslab-gatech/Rudra/blob/master/rudra-sosp...
https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/canvas-unsafe-code-in-the-...
Again, not a criticism of the language itself per se, and certainly not trying to imply that all Rust programmers go around writing unsafe code all day long. It's just kind of funny to me that it is touted as being so much more safe than C++ when the reality is that at least some of those features are in fact disabled for one reason or another in real-world programs.
This is very different than
> in the name of speed, efficiency, etc
And also does not demonstrate that
> the end result being a program which isn't much more secure than its C++ equivalent.
At all.