this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Rust

5771 readers
48 users here now

Welcome to the Rust community! This is a place to discuss about the Rust programming language.

Wormhole

!performance@programming.dev

Credits

  • The icon is a modified version of the official rust logo (changing the colors to a gradient and black background)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

How do you succinctly call a language that has all behavior defined or equivalently no undefined behavior (aside from designated regions)? "Memory safety" is nice since it's concise. Is there another term? Maybe just a "safe" language?

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Wouldn't that language be called "sound"? A "sound" language would guarantee no errors or surprises in types, memory access, or statement execution. It would need to be qualified though since it didn't guarantee programs are sound (that implies error free), it only guarantees use of the language is sound.

"Safe" language also works, and is probably more understandable by the nontechnical decision makers, though it also needs a qualifier to understand what that means.

"Memory safe" is clear and explains one of the huge areas that it excels at. I would prefer "zero cost memory safety" myself, since that sets it apart from other memory safe languages that have extra costs (e.g. runtime checks). "Zero cost safety" is also fine, though I'd want an asterisk that clarifies what it applies to: memory, typing, and statement execution safety.

[–] anlumo@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago

It’s not zero cost though, Rust adds a lot of bounds checks to keep it safe. That’s why there is stuff like .get_unchecked which makes it unsafe.