Hacker News

points by pheggs 3 days ago | 0 comments

That's exactly what I mean. And I have seen a huge amount of unchecked unwraps in production code in the past years

Sure, but it's far better than the C code and I don't think in Rust a library would start returning `Ok` with sentinel values to "fix" shit calling code. Maintainers would, rightfully, tell people to fix their code.

[–] pheggs 2 days ago

Don't get me wrong, I think rust has some great features and does some things extraordinarily good. But at the same time I can see that for 99% of cases it's just as prone to bugs, including security and supply chain attacks, as any other language. I think I could just as much argue that any "->" is clearly de-referencing that needs checking, which is also pretty easy to see.

[–] slopinthebag 2 days ago

this is theoretically, empirically, and objectively wrong. akin to saying that you can get into an accident in a truck as well as a motorcycle, so in 99% of cases there is no difference in safety.

[–] pheggs 2 days ago

different kind of programming languages change the kinds of bugs and their properties, but it does not change the amount of bugs per line of code. in respect to C and rust for example, rust may have less memory bugs - which LLMs seems to be able to spot now - but it did increase supply chain attacks for example.

[–] orf 2 days ago

> but it does not change the amount of bugs per line of code

You are really uninformed: different programming languages have very different volumes of bugs per line of code

[–] pheggs 2 days ago

With all the respect but I don't think I am: https://arxiv.org/html/1901.10220v2

[–] slopinthebag 2 days ago

that only tries to show a single study is flawed, nothing else

do you think bugs/loc is the same between brainfuck and rust?

[–] K0nserv 2 days ago

Agree to disagree I guess :)