Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by charcircuit | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

charcircuit

>100% Rust - No unsafe code blocks

It uses an unsafe code block.

https://github.com/jedisct1/yes-rs/blob/main/src/main.rs#L12...

It also appears to log other stuff than y.

The uutils rewrite of yes into rust doesn't use unsafe and is much simpler.

https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/blob/main/src/uu/yes/src...

View on HN

  > It uses an unsafe code block.

it's okay, it's Rust unsafe

No, it's not. It's false advertising and lifting an unsafe that high in the call stack is dangerous and a sign of poor code quality.

The point of advertising no unsafe in the readme is so that people do not have to worry if the author handled unsafe correctly.

Without it, we can't use the quantum enhanced string, which is safe because it's written in Rust.

It's written using unsafe Rust which means that the compiler will not be able to verify that it is safe. It's not guaranteed to be safe just because it is written in Rust. Please understand this, the author of this repo is spreading incorrect information.

You seem to be saying that Rust code can be unsafe, perhaps you're thinking of the profoundly unsafe and deprecated C or C++ languages?

I recommend reading through this section of the The Rust Programming Language book to learn more about the existence of Unsafe Rust which is a part of Rust and not a different language like C or C++.

https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch20-01-unsafe-rust.html

The article says it right there: unsafe is used to give you unsafe superpowers. This is important for the quantum entanglement that the string uses. Unsafe brings the power (superpowers enabled by the compiler), while the Rust compiler ensures everything is safe. Rust.

>while the Rust compiler ensures everything is safe. Rust.

This is where you are mistaken. Quoting the book:

>Be warned, however, that you use unsafe Rust at your own risk: if you use unsafe code incorrectly, problems can occur due to memory unsafety, such as null pointer dereferencing.

With unsafe rust the compiler no longer ensures everything is safe and it is up to the programmer to ensure that it is.

You're confused by the word 'unsafe', which is a misnomer. Rust. The point of 'unsafe' is to indicate that the compiler should be extra careful when compiling the code, because you're about to do something that only a C/C++ programmer would do. Rust sees this and is extra careful. As in your quote, the compiler makes sure we're not using it incorrectly. Rust.

>is to indicate that the compiler should be extra careful when compiling the code

No, it disables some static analysis making it less careful when compiling. Please reread the chapters I linked to you because it seems like you fundamentally misunderstand what unsafe rust is. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have to clarify it.

I literally just asked ChatGPT and Claude, they both clarified to me that Rust is safe. The website for Rust even says so.

If you have any questions, I would be happy to forward them to my ChatGPT Pro subscription, and then relay the answer back to you.

Rust is an AI native language, it's best to start there.

Will using rust on my Intel® Core™ 13th gen cpu cause it to oxidize?

This would be terrible, I thought rust was a safe language...

My friend on the off chance that you truly don’t see it: they’re teasing you

Rust community is not a place for such behaviour, they are both pretty serious in their opinions

So are you saying these comments are marked as unsafe or are these comment part of the safe rust?

These comments are perfectly valid Rust, everything is safe and robust

I cannot tell if he's playing along or genuinely this ASD.

But what about the quantum compiler?

The difference between a zealot and an evangelist is the ability to understand when someone is making a joke. I’ll let you figure out how you’re coming across here on your own as a growth exercise.

I cannot tell if parent is making a joke, or is dead serious. They won.

  https://github.com/jedisct1/yes-rs/blob/main/src/main.rs#L1233

I think you missed the joke

No, no. Rust's unsafe is fine. After all unsafe is not a problem because it is directly obvious just by looking at the source of your 200 dependencies. If you still have doubts you can make sure everything it is ok simply by writing "SAFETY" next to it to point out that it is safe (btw: not having this is a serious omission in the yes-rs project). And anyway, the compiler still does basically almost all checks! This rest is entirely obvious in Rust. For example, there can never be a subtle exception-related issue that make this difficult to analyze because in Rust it is called panic. And if there is still should be a mistake, then this does not count because it was not the fault of Rust but yours. (This is totally different to C where even the most-expert programmer can never know when he is going to free memory or doing pointer arithmetic. This could literally occur completely surprisingly in every line of code!)

Rust uses AI to ensure that C/C++ programmer mistakes do not happen in unsafe blocks. "unsafe" is a misnomer.

> The uutils rewrite of yes into rust doesn't use unsafe

Yes it does, it uses 'stdout.write_all', which ultimately uses unsafe to call libc.write

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d76fe154029e03aeb64af...

The "unsafe" in uutils is just better hidden.

I personally like my lack-of-safety where I can see it, which is why I find it much more relaxing to drive a car when the engine is already on fire, rather than one where I can't see any visible flames.

It's a joke.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com