Hacker News Reader

"That code can lead to memory corruption of the previous/next pointers and in turn cause a crash."

Oh no, what happened to Rust will save us from retarded legacy languages prone to memory corruption?

Well the article did mention it was in an undafe block

1) unsafe block still of "rust" code that rewritten in "rust" to be safe compared to previous C code. 2) Maybe there is no other way than use "unsafe" block sometimes in "rust", so is Rust a lie?

Rust constrains the code that can do unsafe things to small blocks, greatly reducing the area in which they can happen. Unlike C, where the whole of the code is unsafe.

I imagine for some very low level kernel stuff, you might want to turn off Rust's safety features because they get in the way, make things less efficient or something.

But then when you do you should really know what you're doing.

The fact that this bug is because of "unsafe" Rust usage actually affirms the language's safety when using "safe" code. Although with "memory safe" code you can of course still fuck up lots of other things.

If you do something stupid in a block marked "unsafe", it's probably on you, my guy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com