Hacker News Reader

A panic is memory-safe, so static checking of memory safety holds. Perhaps you should understand your own claims.

I'll henceforth refer to the process of using vector.at(0) instead of vector[0] in C++ as "providing memory safety by static analysis".

Static analysis has a specific meaning, and rote insertion of bounds checking isn't it.

Memory safety has a specific meaning, and panic isn’t it.

C++ can have UB, compilable non-unsafe Rust can’t, that’s what static analysis of memory safety is.

Main point here is you don’t know (and refuse to learn) new knowledge.

If the only way of triggering spatial memory unsafety in C++ was vector[i] and that operation was defined to always interrupt execution, then yes, C++ would be considered memory safe. But that is not the case.

The equivalent of vector[i] in Rust is Vex::get_unchecked, which is marked as unsafe, not the default that people reach for normally.

We are, however, talking in this subthread about the compiler inserting bounds checks and (incorrectly) calling the process "static checking".

I refuted that point by pointing out that the same process, if done manually in C++, would not be considered "static analysis that provides memory safety for array access".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com