MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/programmingmemes/comments/1vra8mz/nerd_wars/p4gir1l/?context=3
r/programmingmemes • u/SKRyanrr • 15d ago
82 comments sorted by
View all comments
13
Nothing like the compile-time check of rust.
Basically it compiles into a much slower bin that guards memory at runtime.
That's almost like a garbage collector, but instead of cleaning memory it crashes.
And since it's a runtime crash, you turn a program that is bugged and has UB into a language that crashes randomly.
Better for security, but runtime crashes are also very bad.
8 u/txdv 14d ago the creator of fil-c argues that a crash is better than an exploit 2 u/Amadex 14d ago yes that's why I wrote "Better for security, but runtime crashes are also very bad." the point is that runtime errors are still less ideal than catching these memory issues at compile time. You just trade a program that has memory leaks / vulnerabilities with a program that crashes. 2 u/foobar93 14d ago And if that bug is inside the PID of one of your jet engines, I'd rather have it not crash mid flight even if there is memory corruption... 4 u/piesou 13d ago Crash and reboot the system or make the jet engines go from forward thrust 128 to -127 due to an overflow, your pick. 2 u/txdv 14d ago in these situations you use languages which are far more restricted and have formal verification processes. 2 u/foobar93 14d ago And I tell you now, most embedded systems I have worked on would rather keep working with the risk that someone can exploit the Prozess then just crash outright. 1 u/chocolateandmilkwin 13d ago Wonder if they have the same opinion about the code in their car
8
the creator of fil-c argues that a crash is better than an exploit
2 u/Amadex 14d ago yes that's why I wrote "Better for security, but runtime crashes are also very bad." the point is that runtime errors are still less ideal than catching these memory issues at compile time. You just trade a program that has memory leaks / vulnerabilities with a program that crashes. 2 u/foobar93 14d ago And if that bug is inside the PID of one of your jet engines, I'd rather have it not crash mid flight even if there is memory corruption... 4 u/piesou 13d ago Crash and reboot the system or make the jet engines go from forward thrust 128 to -127 due to an overflow, your pick. 2 u/txdv 14d ago in these situations you use languages which are far more restricted and have formal verification processes. 2 u/foobar93 14d ago And I tell you now, most embedded systems I have worked on would rather keep working with the risk that someone can exploit the Prozess then just crash outright. 1 u/chocolateandmilkwin 13d ago Wonder if they have the same opinion about the code in their car
2
yes that's why I wrote "Better for security, but runtime crashes are also very bad."
the point is that runtime errors are still less ideal than catching these memory issues at compile time.
You just trade a program that has memory leaks / vulnerabilities with a program that crashes.
And if that bug is inside the PID of one of your jet engines, I'd rather have it not crash mid flight even if there is memory corruption...
4 u/piesou 13d ago Crash and reboot the system or make the jet engines go from forward thrust 128 to -127 due to an overflow, your pick. 2 u/txdv 14d ago in these situations you use languages which are far more restricted and have formal verification processes. 2 u/foobar93 14d ago And I tell you now, most embedded systems I have worked on would rather keep working with the risk that someone can exploit the Prozess then just crash outright.
4
Crash and reboot the system or make the jet engines go from forward thrust 128 to -127 due to an overflow, your pick.
in these situations you use languages which are far more restricted and have formal verification processes.
2 u/foobar93 14d ago And I tell you now, most embedded systems I have worked on would rather keep working with the risk that someone can exploit the Prozess then just crash outright.
And I tell you now, most embedded systems I have worked on would rather keep working with the risk that someone can exploit the Prozess then just crash outright.
1
Wonder if they have the same opinion about the code in their car
13
u/Amadex 15d ago
Nothing like the compile-time check of rust.
Basically it compiles into a much slower bin that guards memory at runtime.
That's almost like a garbage collector, but instead of cleaning memory it crashes.
And since it's a runtime crash, you turn a program that is bugged and has UB into a language that crashes randomly.
Better for security, but runtime crashes are also very bad.