> Uses aliases not pointers, so it's memory-safe
How does it deal with use after free? How does it deal with data races?
Memory safety can't be solved by just eliminating pointer arithmetic, there's more stuff needed to achieve it
How does it deal with use after free? How does it deal with data races?
Memory safety can't be solved by just eliminating pointer arithmetic, there's more stuff needed to achieve it
There’s actually no ‘free’, but in the (member -> variable data) ontology of Cicada there are indeed a few ways memory can become disused: 1) members can be removed; 2) members can be re-aliased; 3) arrays or lists can be resized. In those conditions the automated/manual collection routines will remove the disused memory, and in no case is there any dangling ‘pointer’ (member or alias) pointing to unallocated memory. Does this answer your question?
I agree that my earlier statement wasn’t quite a complete explanation.
Of course, since it interfaces with C, it’s easy to overwrite memory in the callback functions.
> There’s actually no ‘free’, but in the (member -> variable data) ontology of Cicada there are indeed a few ways memory can become disused: 1) members can be removed; 2) members can be re-aliased; 3) arrays or lists can be resized. In those conditions the automated/manual collection routines will remove the disused memory, and in no case is there any dangling ‘pointer’ (member or alias) pointing to unallocated memory. Does this answer your question?
Does this mean that Cicada will happily and wildly leak memory if I allocate short lived objects in a loop?
Why don't you just add some reference counting or tracing GC like everybody else
> 1) members can be removed;
Does this causes use after free if somebody had access to this member? Or it will give an error during access?
The safety comes because there is no way to access a pointer address within the scripting language. The main functionality of pointers is replaced by aliases (e.g. a = @b.c, a = @array[2], etc.). The only use of pointers is behind the scenes, e.g. when you write ‘b.c’ there is of course pointer arithmetic behind the scenes to find the data in member ‘b’.
Having said that, it is certainly possible for a C callback routine to store an internal pointer, then on a second callback try to use that pointer after it has fallen out of scope. This is the only use-after-free I can imagine.
Note that you can add multithreading later if you adopt message passing / actor model. Even Javascript, which is famously single threaded, gained workers with message passing at some point
i :: int | 1 reference
a := @i | 2 references
remove i | 1 reference
The data originally allocated for ‘i’ should persist because its reference count hasn’t hit zero yet.