5 million Rust LOC
One potential memory safety vulnerability found
Rust is 0.2 vuln per 1 MLOC.
Compared to
C and C++ : 1,000 memory safety vulnerabilities per MLOC.
There are certain places on the internet where any mention of rewriting in Rust is met with scorn and ire. And while, like any technical decision, there are pros and cons, I cannot see why in the face of astounding evidence like this, you would completely dismiss it.
And I say this as someone who has never written a line of Rust in their life (some day I'll find the time).
An earlier Google blog post from the same series (link in the first sentence) pointed out why: new code tend to have more vulnerabilities than established code. So it makes more sense to write new code in Rust than to rewrite old code in Rust. After all new features are still being added and new code needs to be written; it’s not like the codebase is done with features.
According to that blog post (https://security.googleblog.com/2024/09/eliminating-memory-s...), the vulnerability density for 5 year old code in Android is 7.4x lower than for new code. If Rust has a 5000 times lower vulnerability density, and if you imagine that 7.4x reduction to repeat itself every 5 years, you would have to "wait" (work on the code) for... about 21 years to get down to the same vulnerability density as new Rust code has. 21 years ago was 2004. Android (2008) didn't even exist yet.
>So it makes more sense to write new code in Rust than to rewrite old code in Rust.
This is a general result regardless of what language you're talking about (unless you're really downgrading to assembly or something crazy). This of course presumes that the overall Rust (or other new language) situation is better than the existing one. It's not generally.
One who has tried the language and hates it can completely dismiss it. Memory issues can be fixed in ways that don't involve rewriting millions of lines of code and the ensuing chaos, feature degradation, retraining, etc. that goes with it.
I think that it would be foolish for any software engineer to completely dismiss any technology. There is a time and place for any tool, and it is a job of a competent engineer to determine what the appropriate combination of these is that would solve a certain problem within specific constraints.
That said, memory safety is one criterion out of many that could be used to make that decision. For a large number of software projects, memory safety simply isn't a major concern. Ease of use, iteration speed, developer familiarity, availability of specific libraries, and so on, are often equal or greater concerns than memory safety.
So, sure, if you're writing a kernel, operating system, or a mission-critical piece of software, then Rust might be worth considering. Otherwise, you might be better served by other languages.
Generally speaking, the purpose of a program is not to minimize the number of memory safety bugs. All other things being equal, yes, having fewer memory safety bugs is better than having more. But perhaps you're trading legible bugs for illegible bugs? The rust implementation is most likely going to be more complex than the c implementation (which is fair since it almost eliminated a whole class of bugs), and in that complexity there is extra room for non-memory safety related bugs.
There's probably also 500x more people who know c to a given level then know rust to a given level.
If we have an analyzer that can find memory safety bugs in C, we could also just put that in the CI pipeline, or as a pre-submit hook before you're allowed to add code to a code base.
The idea that people occasionally throw around that C is more 'simple' and less 'complex' than C++ or Rust and therefore it leads to more maintainable or easy to understand code is, IMO, completely bogus.
C is not simple, it is inept. There are so, so many bargain-bin features and capabilities that it just cannot do that it ends up creating much MORE complex code, not less complex code.
I mean, just the pretense that simple tool = simple engineering isn't necessarily true. Building a home using an excavator and drills is fairly straight forward. You know what's complicated? Trying to build a home using only a screwdriver. Yeah. Good luck with that, you're gonna have to come up with some truly insane processes to make that work. Despite a screwdriver being so much more simple than an excavator.
Trivial example: you want to build a container that can hold data of different types and perform generic operations on them.
C++ and Rust? Easy. Templates and generics. C? Up until a few years ago, your options were: 1. copy and paste (awful) or 2. use void * (also awful).
Copy and paste means your implementations will diverge and you just artificially multiplied your maintenance burden and complexity. And void pointer completely throws away any semblance of type safety, forces you to write stupid code that's way more complex than it needs to be, and, to top it off, is horrible for performance!
That's just one example, but there's so, so many when you look around C++ or Rust enough. And these are not rare things, to me. To me, these are everyday coding problems.
Anonymous functions? There's another one. Encapsulation? Just making not literally every piece of data universally mutable? Not possible in C. Trivial in C++ and Rust, and it makes your programs SO much easier to reason about.
This idea that if Rust doesn't have all those memory safety bugs it must somehow have loads of other bugs we haven't discovered reminds me of Americans insisting that countries which don't have their lousy gun safety problems must have the same effects by some other means they haven't detected - Like, OK England doesn't have lots of gun murders like America, but surely loads of English people are just dropping dead because someone threw a yoghurt at them, or used harsh language, and we just missed them off our statistics ?
No man, it is possible to just do better, and this is an example of just doing better. The Rust is just better software. We can and should learn from this sort of thing, not insist that better is impossible and the evidence suggesting otherwise must be a mirage.
Chances are, a Rust implementation of certain things may be simpler than C implementation. C is a low-level language, so you have to do more housekeeping, and express things obliquely, via implementation, vs expressing things more declaratively in Rust.
Being simpler is not a given though.
"Knowing C" as being able to read and understand what's happening is quite separate from "knowing C" as being able to write it competently. Same thing with Rust: an algorithm written in rust is far from impenetrable for a non-expert, and even someone who sees Rust the first time but has enough experience with other languages.
You're not fully understanding the issue with memory safety. When you write C or C++, you're promising that you won't violate memory safety at all. That's just a basic requirement of what it means to write in those languages.
The graph about reverted code also addresses the "illegible bugs" argument.
As for an analyzer, that's what ASAN is. I hope I don't need to explain why that's not a universal solution (even though everyone should be using it).
> I cannot see why in the face of astounding evidence like this, you would completely dismiss it.
Because it's not a silver bullet. That safety comes at a cost; Rust is much more difficult to learn than C or Zig and the compilation time for code with equivalent semantics is an order of magnitude greater. It has also added a great deal of toolchain complexity to projects like the Linux kernel.
People have decided that the pros outweigh the cons in those particular cases, but those cons exist nonetheless.
Rust is more difficult to learn the basics of than C, but I'm not sure it's more difficult to learn to write memory-safe code in Rust than in C. It's also not clear to me it's that much harder to learn Rust than it is to learn how to write equivalently-high-level code in C++ _unless you end up in one of the areas where Rust is really hard_. But a lot of systems code doesn't end up in those areas. Some does, and then you have to go fishing for a crate that does things for you. C++ just has a lot of corners you can get sucked into, and the legacy mix of multiple generations of C++ coding styles / OO stuff makes for some really tangled messes out there.
(fwiw, I teach undergrad systems programming in C, I use Python at the startup, and I use a mix of C/C++/Rust in research.)
I would personally much prefer to use Rust for code exposed to external untrusted input than to use C. I have substantially more confidence that I would not add exploitable bugs given the same time budget.
My favorite framing for this is that rust front loads all the pain.
C and C++ are incredibly subtle languages. But you can get a lot of code written before you run into certain foot guns in C and C++. This gives those language a more enjoyable on-ramp for beginners.
In comparison, rust is a wall. The compiler just won’t compile your code at all if you do anything wrong. This makes the act of learning rust much more painful. But once you’ve learned rust, it’s a much smoother experience. There’s far fewer ways for your programs to surprise you at runtime.
Is it harder to learn than C? For sure it is a bit harder to get started. But is it also harder to learn than writing proper C(++?) with the same amount of quality in terms of lack of bugs ?
C has plenty of high quality linters like ClangTidy that can teach junior and intermediate developers what not to do. Granted, even with linters, C projects typically have more vulnerabilities than Rust projects, but C has fewer concepts a developer must know to produce working code. For example, to implement a self-balancing binary tree in Rust, you need to first understand reference counting, `RefCell`, and ownership semantics. In C, you just need to know what a struct is and what a pointer is.
This assumes a perfect student who is not going to make any mistakes while writing their code, not even a typo. If an error is introduced, things become much harder on the C side. The compiler may miss it. It could manifest as a bug that only occurs in certain non-obvious circumstances, and manifests erratically (e.g. an out-of-bounds write clobbering data of a node next to it in the heap). Rust would most likely just not allow such a bug to be introduced.
In the same vein, driving on a modern busy road requires you to know about lanes, speed limits, various signs, traffic lights, rules of turning and merging, etc, etc. A road without all of that, where a steering wheel plus two pedals suffice, of course still allows you to drive, and drive fast, but it requires much more attention from a driver; many driver's mistakes are noticed later, and lead to more dangerous accidents.
> In C, you just need to know what a struct is and what a pointer is.
Suppose we have a team of experts busily analyzing every single state of the code. They are reading/valgrinding/fuzzing/etc.-- in real time as the intermediate developer writes code.
Each time the developer tries to compile, the team quickly votes either to a) remain silent and leave the dev alone, or b) stop compilation because someone thinks they've discovered an invalid read/write or some other big no-no that the compiler will not catch (but the Rust compiler would catch).
If they choose b, the experts stop for a bit and discuss the clearest way to communicate the hidden bug. Then they have a quick conversation with the intermediate developer. Suggestions are made, and the whole process repeats.
Is this process substantially faster than just learning Rust?
How often do you DIY a self-balancing binary tree? Sure I wrote a few in college, but in the real world you are almost always just using an existing library. Optimizing for edge cases like that doesn't make sense.
And is your hand-written C implementation going to be safe and correct. You didn't mention any kind of locking or atomic operation, so is it going to unexpectedly break in a multithreaded environment?
The concepts of Rust are definitely more complicated, but in practice it just means that C makes it easier to shoot yourself in the foot. It's easy, but is that really the most important thing here?
It does look like a silver bullet, actually. In the context of software engineering, "silver bullet" inevitably leads to Fred Brooks:
'"No Silver Bullet—Essence and Accident in Software Engineering" is a widely discussed paper on software engineering written by Turing Award winner Fred Brooks in 1986. Brooks argues that "there is no single development, in either technology or management technique, which by itself promises even one order of magnitude [tenfold] improvement within a decade in productivity, in reliability, in simplicity."
Reducing memory-safety vulnerabilities by 5000x compared to the prior approach is not just a silver bullet, it's an arsenal of silver bullets.
> the compilation time for code with equivalent semantics is an order of magnitude greater
The time it takes to write and run the comprehensive tests for C and Zig code to demonstrate anything even approximately in the ballpark of what Rust gives you for free is a multiple orders of magnitude greater than whatever time you spent waiting for the Rust compiler. Why care about the time it takes to compile trivially incorrect code, rather than caring about the total time it takes to produce reliable software, which is demonstrably lower for memory-safe languages like Rust?*
This is exactly the sort of baseless hype that turns people off Rust. Its safety and ownership semantics do not absolve you of the responsibility to write tests for code. The vast majority of tests in any codebase are for business logic - or in the case of the Linux kernel, functionality.
Who said that anyone is absolved of the responsibility to write tests for business logic when using Rust? I struggle to see anything in the comment you replied to that is anywhere close to claiming this
To be honest I feel like "this code is easier to review and less likely to require rollbacks" is even more of a valuable take from this article, just in terms of "hey, don't you like it when things don't have to be rolled back?"
Security issues are like bad etc too, just we've heard the security spiel so many times at this point. I just think it's nicer to write most stuff in Rust.
I don't know much about how it got started. I'm curious how much of Rust's capabilities depend upon recent CS breakthroughs. Could we have made Rust in 1990?
The compiler is also relatively slow. Would Rust have been worth working with on 30+ year old hardware?
> The compiler is also relatively slow. Would Rust have been worth working with on 30+ year old hardware?
As I understand it, a lot of the slowness of the rust compiler comes about from llvm. And how rust and llvm interoperate. Rustc creates and sends gigabytes of stuff to llvm - which passes all of that to its optimizer. If you skip all that work - for example by running cargo check - the compiler is an order of magnitude faster.
If rust were invented in the 90s, it wouldn’t have used llvm. Rust could still have been implemented, and we’d probably have a much faster compiler as a result. But it would have missed out on all the benefits of llvm too. It would have needed its own backend to be written - which would have been more work. And the compiler probably wouldn’t have been as good at low level optimisations. And it probably wouldn’t have out of the box support for so many target platforms. At least, not from day 1.
No. Only massively oversimplifying, Rust could be described as a bunch of ideas pioneered among functional languages coming back to C++, the same way Java was a bunch of ideas from Lisp coming back to C. There is very little that's truly new in Rust, it's just mixing a bunch of features that were not often together before.
> The compiler is also relatively slow. Would Rust have been worth working with on 30+ year old hardware?
What makes Rust slow to compile is largely independent of what makes it unique. A lot of text has been written about this, but the again massively oversimplified version is that had the designers cared about compile times when the language was being designed and the compiler written, you could have something that's very similar to Rust but also very fast to compile.
I think the answer is probably that Rust was possible in the 1980s and 1990s, but such a thing just wasn't practical.
Rust is notoriously compiler-intensive. That wouldn't have been tolerated in the early PC era. When you needed fast compilers that "worked on my machine" and should work on yours. Ship it.
We did, it was called OCaml. If we'd had any sense we'd've rewritten all our systems code in it. But since C had bigger numbers on microbenchmarks, no-one cared.
One of Rust’s biggest and best features is its trait system inspired by Haskell’s type classes. It is the right abstraction for most use cases that in 1990 were implemented by OOP and inheritance. Now the basics of type classes were invented by Wadler in 1988, but certain more advanced features (type families) were only invented in 2005. You mention OCaml but that’s only a small part of Rust’s type system.
So the answer is no, because humans’ collective expertise of programming language theory simply isn’t enough in 1990, unless Rust developers independently invented such features instead of copying them from GHC Haskell.
Note that N=1 for the memory safety vulnerabilities they had with Rust, so the error of the estimated average number of vulnerabilities per LOC is quite large.
Further up they refer to Android C/C++ code, not C/C++ in general:
"We adopted Rust for its security and are seeing a 1000x reduction in memory safety vulnerability density compared to Android’s C and C++ code."
Which means they had a pretty poor code base. If they had spent more time on engineering and less time on features that are canceled after 12 months anyway, they could have written better C/C++.
They found a memory safety bug in their Rust code and assumed it was the only memory safety bug in their Rust codebase. And then they compared it to the historical average in C++ code that's been around for almost two decades in production. I can't be the only one here who sees how biased this comparison is right?
Rather, they found one memory safety bug in their Rust codebase, and measured it against the legions of memory safety bugs they found in their C++ codebase. In neither case are they measuring against bugs not found, so no, it's not biased.
Even if they are off by a factor of 100 it's a huge win and the point stands.
It's fair to point this out and worth the mention. Still, I'd like to think that the engineers behind this can at least gauge the benefit of this endeavor with some accuracy despite the discrepancy in available data, and stating the data that is available only makes sense.
If you want something more comparable, they estimate that only 5% of their Rust code is within unsafe blocks. That makes only 5% of the code with potential for memory safety issues: that's already a 20x improvement. Let's make it 10x because unsafe blocks tend to be trickier, but you still get a lot of Rust guarantees.
The thing is with Rust, you know where to look for memory safety issues: the unsafe blocks. C and C++? GLHF that's your whole codebase. As they mentioned, you don't opt-out of all of Rust guarantees by going the unsafe route. Of course you can ditch them, but that'll be hugely visible during code review. Overall, you can be much more confident saying "yup there's no bug there" in Rust than in C or C++.
and they found 1000 memory safety bugs and assumed it was the only 1000 memory safety bugs in that code which have been in production for 2 decades. How naive can they be?
Rust has been such a "pain" to learn - at least compared to other, more straight-forward languages. But boy does it feel good when you know that after a few back and forths with the compiler, the code compiles and you know, there is not much that is going to go wrong anymore.
Of course, I am exaggerating a bit - and I am not even that experienced with Rust.
But after coding with Ruby, JS/TS and Python - it feels refreshing to know that as long as your code compiles, it probably is 80-90% there.
> Rust has been such a "pain" to learn - at least compared to other, more straight-forward languages. But boy does it feel good when you know that after a few back and forths with the compiler, the code compiles and you know, there is not much that is going to go wrong anymore.
I found that at some point, the rust way kinda took over in my head, and I stopped fighting with the compiler and started working with the compiler.
Rust is the most defect-free language I have ever used.
I'd wager my production Rust code has 100x fewer errors than comparable Javascript, Python, or even Java code.
The way Result<T,E>, Option<T>, match, if let, `?`, and the rest of the error handling and type system operate, it's very difficult to write incorrect code.
The language's design objective was to make it hard to write bugs. I'd say it succeeded with flying colors.
One big source of bugs in TS is structural sharing. Like, imagine you have some complex object that needs to be accessed from multiple places. The obvious, high performance way to share that object is to just pass around references wherever you need them. But this is dangerous. It’s easy to later forget that the object is shared, and mutate it in one place without considering the implications for other parts of your code.
I’ve made this mistake in TS more times than I’d like to admit. It gives rise to some bugs that are very tricky to track down. The obvious ways to avoid this bug are by making everything deeply immutable. Or by cloning instead of sharing. Both of these options aren’t well supported by the language. And they can both be very expensive from a performance pov. I don’t want to pay that cost when it’s not necessary.
Typescript is pretty good. But it’s very normal for a TS program to type check but still contain bugs. In my experience, far fewer bugs slip past the rust compiler.
Appreciate it, that makes a lot of sense. I feel like I've been trained to favor immutability so much in every language that I sometimes forget about these things.
Similar. I mostly design my code around something like pipe and lifetime. The longer something needs to live the closer it is to the start of the program. If I need to mutate it, I take care that the actual mutation happens in one place, so I can differentiate between read and write access. For anything else, I clone and I update. It may not be efficient and you need to track memory usage, but logic is way far simple.
Not parent comment, but TS is generally safe if you have types correct at system borders, but very scary when you don't. Some of the most impactful bugs I've seen are because a type for an HTTP call did not match the structure of real data.
Also, many built in functions do not have sufficient typesafey like Object.entries() for instance
I don't know Rust, and I'm genuinely curious: How does it improve over that problem?
When you call a REST API (or SQL query for that matter), how does it ensure that the data coming back matches the types?
TS allows you to do parse the JSON, cast it into your target type, done (hiding correctness bugs, unless using runtime verification of the object shape, see sibling comment). Does Rust enforce this?
It validates the object shape at runtime, much like you can do in Typescript with a library like Zod. The key difference in this case is that Rust makes it scary to not validate data while Typescript will gladly let you YOLO it and blow your legs off, even in strict mode.
If you type correctly at border of your system, then TS will be very close to a formal verification of your code. This won't catch all bugs, but even broad categories for you data is helpful. If you know your input is a non-null string. Then it will warn you of every non string usage. It won't catch whether it's a name or an email, but knowing someone tries to divide it by zero is helpful.
That is an issue with how TS works, but it can be significantly improved upon by using a library to verify the structure of deserialized data. zod is one example, or you could use protobufs. Fundamentally, this is an issue with any programming language. But having your base "struct"-like type be a hashmap leads to more mistakes as it will accept any keys and any values.
Typescript doesn't even support notions like "unsigned integer". It is not a serious attempt at type-safety; its main claim to fame is "better than raw Javascript" which is not saying much.
Note that Google still doesn't have official support for using Rust in Android userspace, though.
Despite all pluses on the blog, NDK only supports C and C++ tooling, same on Android Studio, and it is up to the community to do the needful work, if anyone feels like using Rust instead.
Nobody's stopping you from using the NDK to compile Rust though. Android's ABI is just an ABI like any other. The system doesn't care if you built an .so using Rust or anything else so long as it plays by the rules.
By first party support, would you be expecting a Rust toolchain shipped in the NDK, or maybe Rust bindings shipped in the NDK?
I could see the latter, although I'd still question whether they should be special cased in terms of a Rust dependency compared to bindings being hosted on crates.io.
Or maybe they should ship scripts that shell out to an existing Rust toolchain.
The Android NDK just barely supports C and C++ either, unless you're ok with 1990's tooling standards. The whole thing feels like it's maintained by two dudes locked in a Google basement somewhere. I doubt they have the capacity to deal with Rust support in the NDK, unless there's a big strategic change in Android tooling.
Have fun justifying that Rust is "also" unsafe, with the right tools you can achieve the same in C++, if you're a great dev you can do even better, etc.
rust has other advantages. I think cargo is better than cmake. I think the syntax is better, I think the way dependencies and modules are handled is better.
It can be annoying to write "safe" code, but once it meets a certain standard I can be confident in multithreaded applications I write.
I would like to use rust to write android apps. I don't really like the whole android studio java thing.
I expect that Google is using neither of these for most of their own code, but rather their own build system (which I think is the same between the languages).
For me the ideal syntax is C/Go, just to be clear what I like.
But I agree that the tooling that cargo introduced is a breath of fresh air in a world dominated by huge makefiles, libraries copied in the repository (I know, there is Conan, vcpkg etc)...
> I cannot like Rust syntax, sorry. For me the ideal syntax is C/Go, just to be clear what I like.
I’m sorry if this comes across as dismissive, but I find it hard to take people seriously with complaints about syntax like this. Learning new syntax is really easy. Like, if you’re familiar with C & Go, you could probably learn all the syntax of rust in under an hour. The only surprising part of rust’s syntax is all the weird variants of match expressions.
Rust has some surprising semantics. Like how lifetimes work (and when you need to specify them explicitly). That stuff is legitimately difficult. But learning that if statements don’t need parenthesis is like - seriously whatever dude. If you want to spend your career never learning new stuff, software isn’t for you.
I picked up objective C about 15 years ago. The only thing most of my friends knew about it was that it had “that weird syntax”. It took no time at all to adjust. It’s just not that hard to type [] characters.
I'm very vocal that I don't like Python syntax, but I wouldn't refuse to write Python because of the syntax. If I had reason to write Python, I would grumble a bit but write the Python.
Go is such a great language. If your code base doesn't mind garbage collection and doesn't depend on some external library, everyone should really look at go. Great multithreading, memory safe, great error handling, and a familiar syntax for people coming from C++/Java/etc.
Go get this completely wrong! It use a tuple rather than an enum for potential errors. This means you can forget to check errors and just use the invalid (nil?) return value from the function.
On the other hand, rust uses the Either enum to force you to handle the error. Alternatively you can use the ? operator to pass it to the calling function, which is reflected in the enclosing function's type.
Yep Rust approach won. Pretty much every new language is adopting Result style errors and it's been adapted to plenty of existing languages.
It's a product of functional programming, and for me I can't see how you would ever want to handle errors outside of the functional programming railway-oriented style. For me it's just superior.
Pet peeves nitpick: it's not even a tuple. Go doesn't have tuples. It just has special-cased "multiple return values", which means that it's often impossible to just stuff the return of a function call (error value and all) into any data structure to aggregate them. You just can't do without first defining a struct since tuples don't exist in Go.
How is Go memory safe? Memory safety does not mean "leaking memory".
It's absolutely possible to compute wrong pointer offsets. It's absolutely possible to dereference nil. It's absolutely possible to bork ownership and have multiple thread trample a struct. It's absolutely possible to reinterpret memory the wrong way.
I do agree that UAF is not possible (in most cases) due to the GC. That array indexing out of bounds is not possible. But it is by no means "memory safe" to the level Rust is.
> It's absolutely possible to bork ownership and have multiple thread trample a struct.
This is specifically the one place where go is not memory safe IMO.
> It's absolutely possible to compute wrong pointer offsets.
In Go? Without the `unsafe` package (at which point you are explicitly opting out)? How? There's no pointer offset in the first place.
> It's absolutely possible to dereference nil.
Yeah, but that's safe defined behavior in go equivalent to "unwrap"ing a None option in rust. It reliably crashes. It's not like C where it's undefined behavior and you might crash of you might just corrupt random memory or have the optimizer make your code do something even stranger.
It's (really the lack of non-nil types) is one of many reasons why go doesn't produce as reliable software as rust, but it's not a memory safety issue.
> It's absolutely possible to reinterpret memory the wrong way.
Zig in spirit is essentially Go without GC. If GC is not reasonable for your usecase Zig seems like an awesome choice. Unfortunately it's probably about 5 to 10 years out from being stable enough for most people being able to write serious applications in it though (notable exceptions being Bun and Ghostty, but they have solid effort behind them keeping them up to date with Zig).
That is an understatement. I can't think of a build system that has spawned more attempts to find something better than CMake has.
There have been so many people trying to make their own C/C++ build system and/or package manager out of sheer spite for CMake that it's frankly hard to keep track.
In fairness to them and to CMake, it's not a simple problem to solve. To truly know CMake is to wish you didn't, that way someone else would have to maintain it.
As an end user: at least with autotools it's easy for me to see the available configuration options with ./configure --help in a nicely readable way. cmake has -LAH but it's still... kind of awful.
Problem is autotools doesn't work when cross compiling - the options are there but there is always something wrong, and it isn't easy to fix. cmake can at least get that right. Note that I cross compile a lot of code so this matters to me, if you just do the common thing autolools might work - but make would as well then.
Yeah; generally I find CMake rules are much easier to read and modify than autotools and makefiles. With Makefiles there’s about 18 different ways to write a rule to compile something, and I find I need to go hunting through a bunch of files to figure out how this makefile in particular defined a rule for compiling this C file in particular. CMake is much higher level. I can just see all the higher level targets, and how they’re built. Then - orthogonally - I can modify the build system that CMake uses to compile C code. It makes a lot more sense.
But I’d take cargo over any of this stuff. Cargo means I don’t have to think about compiler flags at all.
Cargo is absolutely awful. It might be better than cmake, but it still the worst part about Rust. It’s completely opaque, and intermixes a huge pile of different functionality.
Distributing Rust software is the pain that it is mostly because of how Cargo works. It’s pretty much impossible to sanely distribute something that isn’t a headache for downstream to consume.
> Cargo is absolutely awful. It might be better than cmake, but it still the worst part about Rust. It’s completely opaque, and intermixes a huge pile of different functionality.
"Absolutely awful" strikes me as wild hyperbole -- you also meant it this way as well, right? What toolchains are not absolutely awful in your mind?
Cargo isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination -- there are a few common complaints that people have and a bunch of sharp edges (most of which have a github issue that has been open for years), but... "absolutely awful" has to be hyperbole.
That sounds a lot like the issues some Linux distros are running into, where they expect to be able to ship one single blessed pre-compiled version of every library, and have each app load it dynamically at runtime.
But that's just not how Rust works: it's trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, and it isn't Cargo's fault that you have trouble with it.
I’ve found it a joy to use compared to CMake and friends. How does it make it harder to consume something downstream? Seems easy enough to me - just share the source crate.
Are you trying to distribute pre compiled code or something like that? I can see how that would be harder - cargo doesn’t really support that use case.
Cargo is a blessing for any source-available project. All bundled up, a `cargo build` away. Because don't you dare say CMake or autotools are better, that's just the stockholm syndrome kicking in because you're familiar with it.
Seriously, how a CMakeLists.txt can even be compared to a Cargo.toml file? One is imperative full of arcane conditions everywhere filled with boilerplate, while Cargo.toml is a declarative manifest of the package?
Though there is one very sore point when distributing software, and that is for distribution package maintainers, because the whole ecosystem has been built around the C model and dynamic linking. That is not even the fault of cargo, since Rust's ABI is not stable thus dynamic linking would not work most of the time. Another thorn is generic stuff, which needs to be monomorphized, and as such don't work with dynamic linking (without Box<dyn>); C++ actually has the same issue and is why there are so many "header only" libraries for it.
Can you expand on your reasoning? Because the opposite seems to be true when it comes to projects like uv. People love the single-file executable -- easy to just compile that for a platform and have your users download it. It seems like the uv project is having a good time with that model, so I think they show it's not "impossible". Maybe they're doing something different I'm not aware of? Or maybe your use case is different, so what's impossible about your situation?
The only people I’ve met who seem to think it’s a feud war are a few dyed in the wool C++ fans who implicitly hate the idea of programming anything else. Rust is just a language. It has some strengths and weaknesses just like every programming language. Some of its strengths are incredibly compelling.
Personally I’m relieved that we’re starting to see real competition to the C & C++ duopoly. For awhile there all the new languages were GC, and paid for their shiny features with poor runtime performance. (Eg java, C#, Ruby, Python, lua, go, etc etc)
Rust is a fine language. Personally I can’t wait to see what comes after it. I’m sure there’s even better ways to implement some of rust’s features. I hope someone out there is clever enough to figure them out.
That is a surprising opinion. Rust marketing is entirely based - like in this submission - on comparing its memory safety to C/C++ and saying that C is bad!
Even in its own "memory safety" definition, which is the first result on Google, they criticize C instead of providing a proper definition:
I mean we know for sure Rust is unsafe there is whole bug tracker dedicated to all the ways it's unsafe. My favorite is that you can cast any lifetime to static no matter how short it actually is in 100% safe Rust.
I think referencing the well-known cases in cve-rs[1] is quite a bad faith effort. Of course if you try reeeally hard to write unsound code, you can write unsound code. An edge case in the type system downstream of lifetime variance rules is simply not something that matters in any practical attempt to write safe software. I find the tracker interesting since it probes the boundary of the compiler, but it says absolute nothing to the effect of "Rust is unsafe".
This doesn't 'cast' anything. The compiler prevents this because it would allow references that outlive their owners. Freely 'casting' only works for data that is static in nature anyways, at which point a coercion is taking place. Any other way involves `std::mem::transmute` or `Box::leak` and the like.
I'd call it casting thought technically maybe it's not you might want to call it something else? You don't need transmute or leak. The issue is only 10 years old now https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/25860
The unsound bug tracker is were my heart gets all warm and fuzzy in Rust land.
All the ways to coerce and poke the implementation of what should be safe constructs to produce unexpected garbage - and people spending time fixing the issues because they are treated as bugs.
It’s like the best possible advertisement for ”we enable soundness and correctness for all your programs.”
Id like to see dev time in Rust vs C++, but generally, I sort of agree. If you use modern C++ with all its features, Rust is generally a better alternative.
That being said, it would be pretty easy to implement some pointer semantics even in C that can do 95% of what Rust does.
> That being said, it would be pretty easy to implement some pointer semantics even in C that can do 95% of what Rust does.
Making a language with memory-safe pointers isn't hard. Making a language with memory-safe pointers that doesn't rely on sandboxing, a virtual machine, or other dynamic checks which produce runtime overhead--thereby disqualifying one from being considered for this domain in the first place--is nontrivial.
The issue with most codebases is nobody thinks about starting out with acceptance testing system.
The way it should work is that before even writing code, you design a modular acceptance system that runs full suite of tests or a subset based on what you are working on.
This is essentially your contract for software. And on a modular level, it means that it scopes down the contracts to the individual sub systems. And things like memory and cpu runtime constraints are a part of this.
If you have this, you basically replace what the Rust compiler is doing for you with tests. Memory leaks are caught. However, as a benefit, you also can verify changes in the dev cycle with things like performance degradation, all in the same system.
I'm not sure that nobody thinks of this. We just have a finite amount of time. Usually with a solid approach, you get solid performance. Fixing a performance related bug rarely when it comes up, is still a time savings over designing this kind of rigorous process from scratch, and getting everyone on board with it.
Getting rid of a whole host of bugs due to the compiler is a big deal because you won't have to design this extra acceptance system or deal with keeping an entire organization disciplined by it. If you can solve this seamlessly I think that's an interesting product that others would be very interested in.
> The way it should work is that before even writing code, you design a modular acceptance system that runs full suite of tests …
Sometimes. It depends on what you’re working on.
Part of the fun challenge in writing software is that the act of programming can teach you that you’re wrong at every level. The syntax can be wrong. The algorithm you’re implementing can be wrong. The way you’re designing a module can be misguided. And you might be solving the wrong problem entirely! Like, maybe you spend weeks adding a feature to a game and it makes the game less fun! Oops!
Tests formalise beliefs about what you want your code to do, at some level of abstraction. But if those beliefs turn out to be wrong, the tests themselves become a headwind when you try and refactor. You want those early refactoring to be as easy as possible while you’re learning a problem space.
Now, some programs don’t suffer from this as much. If you’re implementing a C compiler or drop in replacement for grep, you have some clear acceptance tests that will almost certainly not change through your project’s lifecycle.
But not all problems have clear constraints like that. Sometimes you’re inventing a programming language. Or writing a game. Or making a user interface. In my opinion, problems that are fully constrained from the start are some of the least interesting to work on. Where’s the discovery?
I will simply say that Google is one of the few places that, to a first approximation, has this. We have our (pretty good) suite of tests. We can run only affected tests. We can them with instrumentation (*SAN), we can run them under various memory and CPU limits, we can run them 1000 times in parallel to deflake.
Anyway Google has all of that, and yet still finds this improvement.
Writing the tests before the code only really works if there's an interface that's fully defined and well specified in advance. There are definitely times where that is the case, but in my experience it usually doesn't work like that.
Funny, another commenter on this post was saying the opposite, that Rust was likely being used to just port existing features and that was easier because there were probably good tests for it already.
If you've actually written considerable amounts of Rust and C++, these statistics don't require justification. In my opinion it's completely expected that Rust code is easier to write correctly.
As a relatively novice programmer who's worked in tech for decades but not as a software developer: I take issue with the idea that you need to write considerable amounts of Rust and C++ for these statistics to be expected. In fact, despite Rust's initial vertical learning curve I'd say that any junior developer trying to implement anything with any degree of complexity at all in Rust and C++ would see the benefits.
At the very least, the fact that IDE integration can tell you all kinds of stuff about what you're doing/doing wrong and why accelerates things greatly when you're starting out.
The logic in my comment wasn't that you need to have written considerably amounts of code to be expecting this, just that to not be expecting this would make me think you hadn't. If that makes sense.
On your second point, I think IDE integration for C++ is similar as it is for Rust. Just Rust errors and tooling are a million times better regardless of IDE.
Oh, the more junior the developers, the quicker they will get any benefit. That's common for any language that enforces correctness, but the C++ vs. Rust comparison isn't even fair; C++ is an incredibly hard language to use.
Apple should have modernized ObjC instead of making Swift the lingua franca. Both speed of iteration and flexibility (on which web-stack-rivaling productivity features would have been possible) are gone forever.
Swift Concurrency is a tire fire that not even their async-algorithms team can use completely correctly, and useful feature like typed throws are left half finished. The enormous effort the constant further bastardization of Swift takes, is at least in part the reason for the sorry state dev tooling is in. Not even a 4T dollar company can make a reliable SwiftUI preview work, in their own IDE. Variadic generics (a seemingly pure compiler feature) crash at runtime if you look at them the wrong way. Actors, the big light tower of their structured concurrency, are unusable because calls to them are unordered. They enforce strict concurrency checking now, but the compiler is too dumb to infer common valid send patterns; and their solution to make this abomination work in real codebases? Intro a default that lets _everything_ in a module run on the main thread per default!
Swift has so many issues they would honestly be better off just moving to Rust rather than fix Swift. Seriously. The fact that it's so easy to get the compiler to spend exponential time resolving types that it very often just shits the bed and begs you to rewrite your code for it to stand a chance is shameful coming from, as you say, a $4T company. Points to deep problems with Swift.
While the C calling convention continues to rule operating systems and FFIs, I think it’ll continue to limp along. Hopefully one day that can be fixed, it’s annoying that C is what I have to reach for to call SomeLib no matter what language I’m using
For example: folks are more likely to rewrite stuff that is well-understood, and stuff that is well-understood is going to have shorter review times and lower rollback rate.
That gnarly horrid mess that only a few greybeards grok and has massive test coverage, a long tail of requirements enforced by tests and experience, and a culture of extreme rigor? Longer reviews, more rollbacks, and less likely to be rewritten.
The first chart does in fact a compelling reason to believe the effect is not that at all. If the "easy" code was predominantly being rewritten you would expect to % new memory unsafe code and % memory safety vulnerabilities to scale at different rates as the difficult to work on areas remained in C and kept causing new memory vulnerabilities.
Personal experience also provides a compelling reason, my experience is absolutely that people are more inclined to rewrite the things that are causing trouble in a new language.
It's not a blinded randomly controlled trial of course, it's observational data. You can't be completely sure there isn't a confounding factor that explains the data, but it seems far more likely than not that it is a real effect.
I don't see a contradiction between the statement that vulns in C++ code are generally on a downward trajectory, and the statement that most vulns are in new code.
> That gnarly horrid mess that only a few greybeards grok and has massive test coverage, a long tail of requirements enforced by tests and experience, and a culture of extreme rigor? Longer reviews, more rollbacks, and less likely to be rewritten.
I'd say that this is likely the most likely to be rewritten actually, because high test coverage is a massive enabler in such a rewrite, and because having a project that “only a few greybeards grok” sounds like a big organizational liability.
That being said, and while I'm pretty convinced that Rust bring massive benefits, I agree with you that these measurements shouldn't be taken as if it was a rigorous scientific proof. It's more of one additional anecdotal evidence that Rust is good.
> And then the rest of us have a data point that we think we can trust, when in reality, it's just cherry picked data being used to convey an opinion.
Calling what Google did here "science" and cherry picked is quite a disservice. It's observational data, but do you have any objection to the methodology they used? Or just (assumed?) bad vibes?
> In science, you go out of your way to control for confounding factors.
There's tons of observational science done in a very similar fashion to the article where there is simply no way to control for confounding factors for the same reason that there is simply no way to properly control for it in the data available.
Having been close to someone who went through the PhD process to a career in research, this is a sadly common but romantic and incorrect view of science as practiced in the world today.
Going out of your way would involve committing unethical experiments, which is absolutely frowned upon by scientists.
And many experiments are simply impossible to do in a manner that completely removed every outside factors. But that doesn't mean that an experiment's results are immediately bad.
At this point I feel like it's no longer an uphill climb to get Rust into foundational, mission-critical code adoption. The benefits are so obvious. Maybe it's just a lingering religious war?
In any case, I'm glad we're seeing more and more evidence and case-studies of why "rewrite it in Rust" isn't just a meme.
I think they're trying to avoid rewriting things for no reason though. The things being rewritten tend to have a history of security problems or other issues that would be cause for a rewrite even if it wasn't in Rust.
Go look at the comments on any Phoronix article involving Rust in any way and you'll see that it's 80% rust haters making all the same arguments every Rust hater makes. You can implement the same safety features in C++ and assembly if you know what you're doing! You can still write bugs in Rust! I know someone who tried to learn rust and he accidentally deleted his home directory so everyone may as well stick to C!
It's all nonsense, but it would be hilarious if it weren't so ignorant.
Yeah but 1000x less mistake ????? I mean these people behind android project is atleast one of the better engineer but jesus christ if they can improve so much then I dont know how much average joe can benefit from that
Rust makes sense in the case of Android, where the kernel and software is rolled by Google. In the same way that Java made sense for a lot of the backend services in 2010s despite its drawbacks before Node and Python got major improvements in speed and compute became cheaper.
That however is a very niche case where Rust is applicable.
The anti-rust people (like me) aren't saying that Rust is bad. We are just arguing against its adoption for everything.
When you see shit like "[...] should be rewritten in Rust because memory safe", it shows that people have no idea what memory safety even is. There is this dumb belief stemming from lack of proper CS education that any code you write can just randomly have memory safety issues.
The downsides of Rust is that its ownership semantics are often cumbersome to write, which slows down development. Rust is also still evolving because of the stuff that happens under the hood. And for a lot of things, where network latency is dominant and cpu cycles are spent sleeping waiting for responses to come back, you don't need natively compiled code in lieu of python or node that are way more flexible and faster to develop in.
So in most cases, Rust is not applicable, when you can write perfectly memory safe code faster.
There is this dumb belief stemming from lack of proper CS education that any code you write can just randomly have memory safety issues.
This is effectively true in C and C++ though. Show me a nontrivial project in either of those languages that has never had a memory safety issue and I'll show you a project that doesn't look at quality. Even SQlite doesn't meet this bar, despite incredibly skilled programmers and an obsessive commitment to quality.
The thing about Rust is you pay for everything up front, and the dividends come later. You pay first to learn it, which is not easy. Then you pay every time you have to compile your code, which can kill development momentum. When you are learning, often times this manifests as a moment where you have to completely rearchitect your approach because plowing forward is too costly. It's at this point a lot of people say "Rust is too hard!" and they give up.
But if you stick it out, as Google has, the dividend is that more often than with other languages, you are not paying these costs continually but instead reaping dividends on the long run.
First of all, Rust has the Haskell-like property that (as long as the logic is sound) if your code compiles, it usually runs just fine. This is why testing speeds up, because all of the edge cases that are explored during testing were already accounted for by the compiler.
It also translates into easier refactoring, where you can make sweeping changes in the codebase and feel confident that you can put it all back together again.
And then there's the fact that the programs themselves are fast. How many times has uv been brought up here and the #1 remark people have is "wow it's so fast!". Fast is a feature, and your users benefit from it every time they run your code.
It's hard to find that nexus of features in other languages. Usually they are just as fast and hard to write as Rust, without the safety guarantees. Or they are just as safe as Rust, but without the speed. And that's why Rust has hit a sweet spot where other languages can't quite get it.
It's so easy to bake in proofs/invariants into types, yet you still retain control of the memory model.
One of the main features of Rust is the community, there are so many great packages
Something that will replace/build on Rust in the future is a language based on Two Level Type theory, where you have zero cost abstractions with a language that can do full dependent type theory
I agree with you as long as you don't know C++ first. I actually teach C++ and Rust to students who only know Java, and they have a much easier time picking up Rust. It's the people who approach Rust with C++ idioms who have the wort time with it. It comes down to the tooling, especially Cargo being the one-stop-shop for everything Rust. Another poster here laments that Cargo is too overloaded with disjoint functionality, but that's actually a benefit for a lot of learners.
>if your code compiles, it usually runs just fine.
This was the same argument for Java, which is memory safe, fairly strict in terms of ownership.
The fact is, Rust addresses only one memory safe thing, and that is double free. If you don't understand why that is, you probably shouldn't talk about memory safety.
The dividends never get there if you don't ever run into this.
>And then there's the fact that the programs themselves are fast. How many times has uv been brought up here and the #1 remark people have is "wow it's so fast!"
This is a vibe at best. The speed difference is surely there. But it makes very little difference when there are much slower things in the entire workflow, like pulling things from the internet.
Basically, Rust is a good choice for a small subset of things. Android happens to be one of them, because a) you need native code performance, b) you have multiple teams working on many services and c) you have a somewhat closed ecosystem where you control a lot of the low level things. Because of all of this, double frees are a real threat and can pop up as you are passing data around without strict checks.
> The fact is, Rust addresses only one memory safe thing, and that is double free. If you don't understand why that is, you probably shouldn't talk about memory safety.
> Chromium: Parsers for PNG, JSON, and web fonts have been replaced with memory-safe implementations in Rust, making it easier for Chromium engineers to deal with data from the web
I find this surprising, isn't Wuffs[1] (also made by Google) an even better fit for this particular use-case? (It has compile-time spatial memory safety, where Rust has compile-time temporal safety but runtime spatial safety, with bound checking).
Obviously for general-purpose system programming, Rust is a no-brainer and I'm happy to see Google pursuing their rustification of Android.
I don't find it surprising, just from barriers to adoption: "Wuffs programs take longer for a programmer to write, as they have to explicitly annotate their programs with proofs of safety" is a hard sell (even if it has obvious value) and "you have to learn and integrate yet another language just for parsing files" is a hard sell too.
Which isn't to say that it shouldn't be adopted (having not used it I really don't know), just that it's not surprising that it's having difficulty gaining traction.
If you're parsing untrusted data, then some level of runtime checking is unavoidable. And Rust's pretty good at letting you encode "I already checked this and therefore don't need to check it again" into the type system.
I don't understand the graphs presented here. On the first graph showing "New Memory Unsafe Code" and "Memory safety Vulns" we don't have any steady state. The amount of both "unsafe code" and "memory safety vulns" had apparently already been dropping before 2019. None the matter though, we see a great big drop at 2022 in both.
Then in the next graph, showing "Rust" and "C++", we see that the amount of C++ code written in 2022 actually increased, with rust not really having gained any significant momentum.
How can one possibly square those two pieces of data to point at rust somehow fixing the "memory safety vulns"? Somehow an increase in C++ code led to a decrease in the amount of both "New Memory Unsafe Code" and "Memory safety Vulns".
Also "this approach isn’t just fixing things, but helping us move faster." is an AI red flag.
> How can one possibly square those two pieces of data to point at rust somehow fixing the "memory safety vulns"? Somehow an increase in C++ code led to a decrease in the amount of both "New Memory Unsafe Code" and "Memory safety Vulns".
The first graph considers <memory unsafe> vs <memory safe> languages, while the second graph considers C++ vs Rust. There's more languages than just those two in the first graph.
Moreover the first graph is in percentage terms, while the second graph is in absolute terms.
In 2022 it appears a bunch of memory safe non-rust code was added. Java/python/...
> Also "this approach isn’t just fixing things, but helping us move faster." is an AI red flag.
I’m a little perplexed why every time something in rust compiles, there’s a blog post about it. I was under the impression Ada, especially when using provers, has been around much longer and is more robust. I just can’t decide if the massive Rust evangelism budget is a red flag or just a curious sociological case study, but I wish I knew the truth.
Rust has the twin features of significant technical merits and a powerful hype machine. In truth, it's neither the devil nor the best thing since sliced bread. It has enough traction that the tooling and developer experience are always improving, and appeals to a wide range of uses. Rust was lucky enough to get noticed when it was decent pre 1.0, which motivated the community to make it excellent at 1.0, and it's been making history ever since. I think Rust got critical mass because it had a bold vision and focused on developer experience enough to get buy in on improving its performance and robustness. Ada is wonderful, but it's less pretty, and doesn't make pretensions. In that sense, Rust was built for the hype, but the language has benefitted greatly from all the attention.
There are certain places on the internet where any mention of rewriting in Rust is met with scorn and ire. And while, like any technical decision, there are pros and cons, I cannot see why in the face of astounding evidence like this, you would completely dismiss it.
And I say this as someone who has never written a line of Rust in their life (some day I'll find the time).
An earlier Google blog post from the same series (link in the first sentence) pointed out why: new code tend to have more vulnerabilities than established code. So it makes more sense to write new code in Rust than to rewrite old code in Rust. After all new features are still being added and new code needs to be written; it’s not like the codebase is done with features.
According to that blog post (https://security.googleblog.com/2024/09/eliminating-memory-s...), the vulnerability density for 5 year old code in Android is 7.4x lower than for new code. If Rust has a 5000 times lower vulnerability density, and if you imagine that 7.4x reduction to repeat itself every 5 years, you would have to "wait" (work on the code) for... about 21 years to get down to the same vulnerability density as new Rust code has. 21 years ago was 2004. Android (2008) didn't even exist yet.
>So it makes more sense to write new code in Rust than to rewrite old code in Rust.
This is a general result regardless of what language you're talking about (unless you're really downgrading to assembly or something crazy). This of course presumes that the overall Rust (or other new language) situation is better than the existing one. It's not generally.
One who has tried the language and hates it can completely dismiss it. Memory issues can be fixed in ways that don't involve rewriting millions of lines of code and the ensuing chaos, feature degradation, retraining, etc. that goes with it.
I think that it would be foolish for any software engineer to completely dismiss any technology. There is a time and place for any tool, and it is a job of a competent engineer to determine what the appropriate combination of these is that would solve a certain problem within specific constraints.
That said, memory safety is one criterion out of many that could be used to make that decision. For a large number of software projects, memory safety simply isn't a major concern. Ease of use, iteration speed, developer familiarity, availability of specific libraries, and so on, are often equal or greater concerns than memory safety.
So, sure, if you're writing a kernel, operating system, or a mission-critical piece of software, then Rust might be worth considering. Otherwise, you might be better served by other languages.
Generally speaking, the purpose of a program is not to minimize the number of memory safety bugs. All other things being equal, yes, having fewer memory safety bugs is better than having more. But perhaps you're trading legible bugs for illegible bugs? The rust implementation is most likely going to be more complex than the c implementation (which is fair since it almost eliminated a whole class of bugs), and in that complexity there is extra room for non-memory safety related bugs.
There's probably also 500x more people who know c to a given level then know rust to a given level.
If we have an analyzer that can find memory safety bugs in C, we could also just put that in the CI pipeline, or as a pre-submit hook before you're allowed to add code to a code base.
The idea that people occasionally throw around that C is more 'simple' and less 'complex' than C++ or Rust and therefore it leads to more maintainable or easy to understand code is, IMO, completely bogus.
C is not simple, it is inept. There are so, so many bargain-bin features and capabilities that it just cannot do that it ends up creating much MORE complex code, not less complex code.
I mean, just the pretense that simple tool = simple engineering isn't necessarily true. Building a home using an excavator and drills is fairly straight forward. You know what's complicated? Trying to build a home using only a screwdriver. Yeah. Good luck with that, you're gonna have to come up with some truly insane processes to make that work. Despite a screwdriver being so much more simple than an excavator.
Trivial example: you want to build a container that can hold data of different types and perform generic operations on them.
C++ and Rust? Easy. Templates and generics. C? Up until a few years ago, your options were: 1. copy and paste (awful) or 2. use void * (also awful).
Copy and paste means your implementations will diverge and you just artificially multiplied your maintenance burden and complexity. And void pointer completely throws away any semblance of type safety, forces you to write stupid code that's way more complex than it needs to be, and, to top it off, is horrible for performance!
That's just one example, but there's so, so many when you look around C++ or Rust enough. And these are not rare things, to me. To me, these are everyday coding problems.
Anonymous functions? There's another one. Encapsulation? Just making not literally every piece of data universally mutable? Not possible in C. Trivial in C++ and Rust, and it makes your programs SO much easier to reason about.
This idea that if Rust doesn't have all those memory safety bugs it must somehow have loads of other bugs we haven't discovered reminds me of Americans insisting that countries which don't have their lousy gun safety problems must have the same effects by some other means they haven't detected - Like, OK England doesn't have lots of gun murders like America, but surely loads of English people are just dropping dead because someone threw a yoghurt at them, or used harsh language, and we just missed them off our statistics ?
No man, it is possible to just do better, and this is an example of just doing better. The Rust is just better software. We can and should learn from this sort of thing, not insist that better is impossible and the evidence suggesting otherwise must be a mirage.
Chances are, a Rust implementation of certain things may be simpler than C implementation. C is a low-level language, so you have to do more housekeeping, and express things obliquely, via implementation, vs expressing things more declaratively in Rust.
Being simpler is not a given though.
"Knowing C" as being able to read and understand what's happening is quite separate from "knowing C" as being able to write it competently. Same thing with Rust: an algorithm written in rust is far from impenetrable for a non-expert, and even someone who sees Rust the first time but has enough experience with other languages.
You're not fully understanding the issue with memory safety. When you write C or C++, you're promising that you won't violate memory safety at all. That's just a basic requirement of what it means to write in those languages.
The graph about reverted code also addresses the "illegible bugs" argument.
As for an analyzer, that's what ASAN is. I hope I don't need to explain why that's not a universal solution (even though everyone should be using it).
> I cannot see why in the face of astounding evidence like this, you would completely dismiss it.
Because it's not a silver bullet. That safety comes at a cost; Rust is much more difficult to learn than C or Zig and the compilation time for code with equivalent semantics is an order of magnitude greater. It has also added a great deal of toolchain complexity to projects like the Linux kernel.
People have decided that the pros outweigh the cons in those particular cases, but those cons exist nonetheless.
Rust is more difficult to learn the basics of than C, but I'm not sure it's more difficult to learn to write memory-safe code in Rust than in C. It's also not clear to me it's that much harder to learn Rust than it is to learn how to write equivalently-high-level code in C++ _unless you end up in one of the areas where Rust is really hard_. But a lot of systems code doesn't end up in those areas. Some does, and then you have to go fishing for a crate that does things for you. C++ just has a lot of corners you can get sucked into, and the legacy mix of multiple generations of C++ coding styles / OO stuff makes for some really tangled messes out there.
(fwiw, I teach undergrad systems programming in C, I use Python at the startup, and I use a mix of C/C++/Rust in research.)
I would personally much prefer to use Rust for code exposed to external untrusted input than to use C. I have substantially more confidence that I would not add exploitable bugs given the same time budget.
My favorite framing for this is that rust front loads all the pain.
C and C++ are incredibly subtle languages. But you can get a lot of code written before you run into certain foot guns in C and C++. This gives those language a more enjoyable on-ramp for beginners.
In comparison, rust is a wall. The compiler just won’t compile your code at all if you do anything wrong. This makes the act of learning rust much more painful. But once you’ve learned rust, it’s a much smoother experience. There’s far fewer ways for your programs to surprise you at runtime.
Is it harder to learn than C? For sure it is a bit harder to get started. But is it also harder to learn than writing proper C(++?) with the same amount of quality in terms of lack of bugs ?
C has plenty of high quality linters like ClangTidy that can teach junior and intermediate developers what not to do. Granted, even with linters, C projects typically have more vulnerabilities than Rust projects, but C has fewer concepts a developer must know to produce working code. For example, to implement a self-balancing binary tree in Rust, you need to first understand reference counting, `RefCell`, and ownership semantics. In C, you just need to know what a struct is and what a pointer is.
This assumes a perfect student who is not going to make any mistakes while writing their code, not even a typo. If an error is introduced, things become much harder on the C side. The compiler may miss it. It could manifest as a bug that only occurs in certain non-obvious circumstances, and manifests erratically (e.g. an out-of-bounds write clobbering data of a node next to it in the heap). Rust would most likely just not allow such a bug to be introduced.
In the same vein, driving on a modern busy road requires you to know about lanes, speed limits, various signs, traffic lights, rules of turning and merging, etc, etc. A road without all of that, where a steering wheel plus two pedals suffice, of course still allows you to drive, and drive fast, but it requires much more attention from a driver; many driver's mistakes are noticed later, and lead to more dangerous accidents.
> In C, you just need to know what a struct is and what a pointer is.
Suppose we have a team of experts busily analyzing every single state of the code. They are reading/valgrinding/fuzzing/etc.-- in real time as the intermediate developer writes code.
Each time the developer tries to compile, the team quickly votes either to a) remain silent and leave the dev alone, or b) stop compilation because someone thinks they've discovered an invalid read/write or some other big no-no that the compiler will not catch (but the Rust compiler would catch).
If they choose b, the experts stop for a bit and discuss the clearest way to communicate the hidden bug. Then they have a quick conversation with the intermediate developer. Suggestions are made, and the whole process repeats.
Is this process substantially faster than just learning Rust?
Edit: clarification
How often do you find yourself implementing self-balancing trees in either C or Rust?
How often do you DIY a self-balancing binary tree? Sure I wrote a few in college, but in the real world you are almost always just using an existing library. Optimizing for edge cases like that doesn't make sense.
And is your hand-written C implementation going to be safe and correct. You didn't mention any kind of locking or atomic operation, so is it going to unexpectedly break in a multithreaded environment?
The concepts of Rust are definitely more complicated, but in practice it just means that C makes it easier to shoot yourself in the foot. It's easy, but is that really the most important thing here?
To me, those sound like meaningful pros and cons, not a reason to completely dismiss it.
> Because it's not a silver bullet.
It does look like a silver bullet, actually. In the context of software engineering, "silver bullet" inevitably leads to Fred Brooks:
'"No Silver Bullet—Essence and Accident in Software Engineering" is a widely discussed paper on software engineering written by Turing Award winner Fred Brooks in 1986. Brooks argues that "there is no single development, in either technology or management technique, which by itself promises even one order of magnitude [tenfold] improvement within a decade in productivity, in reliability, in simplicity."
Reducing memory-safety vulnerabilities by 5000x compared to the prior approach is not just a silver bullet, it's an arsenal of silver bullets.
> the compilation time for code with equivalent semantics is an order of magnitude greater
The time it takes to write and run the comprehensive tests for C and Zig code to demonstrate anything even approximately in the ballpark of what Rust gives you for free is a multiple orders of magnitude greater than whatever time you spent waiting for the Rust compiler. Why care about the time it takes to compile trivially incorrect code, rather than caring about the total time it takes to produce reliable software, which is demonstrably lower for memory-safe languages like Rust?*
This is exactly the sort of baseless hype that turns people off Rust. Its safety and ownership semantics do not absolve you of the responsibility to write tests for code. The vast majority of tests in any codebase are for business logic - or in the case of the Linux kernel, functionality.
Who said that anyone is absolved of the responsibility to write tests for business logic when using Rust? I struggle to see anything in the comment you replied to that is anywhere close to claiming this
To be honest I feel like "this code is easier to review and less likely to require rollbacks" is even more of a valuable take from this article, just in terms of "hey, don't you like it when things don't have to be rolled back?"
Security issues are like bad etc too, just we've heard the security spiel so many times at this point. I just think it's nicer to write most stuff in Rust.
Rust is truly a marvel of engineering. A breakthrough. Such a thing is so very rare in computer science.
I don't know much about how it got started. I'm curious how much of Rust's capabilities depend upon recent CS breakthroughs. Could we have made Rust in 1990?
The compiler is also relatively slow. Would Rust have been worth working with on 30+ year old hardware?
> The compiler is also relatively slow. Would Rust have been worth working with on 30+ year old hardware?
As I understand it, a lot of the slowness of the rust compiler comes about from llvm. And how rust and llvm interoperate. Rustc creates and sends gigabytes of stuff to llvm - which passes all of that to its optimizer. If you skip all that work - for example by running cargo check - the compiler is an order of magnitude faster.
If rust were invented in the 90s, it wouldn’t have used llvm. Rust could still have been implemented, and we’d probably have a much faster compiler as a result. But it would have missed out on all the benefits of llvm too. It would have needed its own backend to be written - which would have been more work. And the compiler probably wouldn’t have been as good at low level optimisations. And it probably wouldn’t have out of the box support for so many target platforms. At least, not from day 1.
> Could we have made Rust in 1990?
No. Only massively oversimplifying, Rust could be described as a bunch of ideas pioneered among functional languages coming back to C++, the same way Java was a bunch of ideas from Lisp coming back to C. There is very little that's truly new in Rust, it's just mixing a bunch of features that were not often together before.
> The compiler is also relatively slow. Would Rust have been worth working with on 30+ year old hardware?
What makes Rust slow to compile is largely independent of what makes it unique. A lot of text has been written about this, but the again massively oversimplified version is that had the designers cared about compile times when the language was being designed and the compiler written, you could have something that's very similar to Rust but also very fast to compile.
I think the answer is probably that Rust was possible in the 1980s and 1990s, but such a thing just wasn't practical.
Rust is notoriously compiler-intensive. That wouldn't have been tolerated in the early PC era. When you needed fast compilers that "worked on my machine" and should work on yours. Ship it.
> Could we have made Rust in 1990?
We did, it was called OCaml. If we'd had any sense we'd've rewritten all our systems code in it. But since C had bigger numbers on microbenchmarks, no-one cared.
One of Rust’s biggest and best features is its trait system inspired by Haskell’s type classes. It is the right abstraction for most use cases that in 1990 were implemented by OOP and inheritance. Now the basics of type classes were invented by Wadler in 1988, but certain more advanced features (type families) were only invented in 2005. You mention OCaml but that’s only a small part of Rust’s type system.
So the answer is no, because humans’ collective expertise of programming language theory simply isn’t enough in 1990, unless Rust developers independently invented such features instead of copying them from GHC Haskell.
Those are orange vs apple, just like the rate of rollbacks
They compare something new, which rewrite existing stuff (not only but still) with some decades-years-old cruft
In they new code, they know what they want
They can also start with state-of-the-art unit testing that may not exist in the early 2000
So .. yeah, those numbers ..
That rust is saner than c++ is a given anyway :)
Absolutely crazy.. I never expected that the difference would be so drastic.
Isn't that a lot though, that means 1 memory safety vulnerability per 1000 lines of code, that seems hard to believe.
It's not _that_ hard to believe if you start spraying smart pointers everywhere.
Per million lines of code.
Note that N=1 for the memory safety vulnerabilities they had with Rust, so the error of the estimated average number of vulnerabilities per LOC is quite large.
Yes. I would make a guess of 10 or less memory-safety vulnerabilities per MLOC, which is still a hundredfold reduction.
Further up they refer to Android C/C++ code, not C/C++ in general:
"We adopted Rust for its security and are seeing a 1000x reduction in memory safety vulnerability density compared to Android’s C and C++ code."
Which means they had a pretty poor code base. If they had spent more time on engineering and less time on features that are canceled after 12 months anyway, they could have written better C/C++.
They found a memory safety bug in their Rust code and assumed it was the only memory safety bug in their Rust codebase. And then they compared it to the historical average in C++ code that's been around for almost two decades in production. I can't be the only one here who sees how biased this comparison is right?
Rather, they found one memory safety bug in their Rust codebase, and measured it against the legions of memory safety bugs they found in their C++ codebase. In neither case are they measuring against bugs not found, so no, it's not biased.
Even if they are off by a factor of 100 it's a huge win and the point stands.
It's fair to point this out and worth the mention. Still, I'd like to think that the engineers behind this can at least gauge the benefit of this endeavor with some accuracy despite the discrepancy in available data, and stating the data that is available only makes sense.
If you want something more comparable, they estimate that only 5% of their Rust code is within unsafe blocks. That makes only 5% of the code with potential for memory safety issues: that's already a 20x improvement. Let's make it 10x because unsafe blocks tend to be trickier, but you still get a lot of Rust guarantees.
The thing is with Rust, you know where to look for memory safety issues: the unsafe blocks. C and C++? GLHF that's your whole codebase. As they mentioned, you don't opt-out of all of Rust guarantees by going the unsafe route. Of course you can ditch them, but that'll be hugely visible during code review. Overall, you can be much more confident saying "yup there's no bug there" in Rust than in C or C++.
Even so, relatively speaking if C is not 50,000x worse, it must be at least 2000x worse.
and they found 1000 memory safety bugs and assumed it was the only 1000 memory safety bugs in that code which have been in production for 2 decades. How naive can they be?
Rust has been such a "pain" to learn - at least compared to other, more straight-forward languages. But boy does it feel good when you know that after a few back and forths with the compiler, the code compiles and you know, there is not much that is going to go wrong anymore.
Of course, I am exaggerating a bit - and I am not even that experienced with Rust.
But after coding with Ruby, JS/TS and Python - it feels refreshing to know that as long as your code compiles, it probably is 80-90% there.
And it is fast, too.
> Rust has been such a "pain" to learn - at least compared to other, more straight-forward languages. But boy does it feel good when you know that after a few back and forths with the compiler, the code compiles and you know, there is not much that is going to go wrong anymore.
I found that at some point, the rust way kinda took over in my head, and I stopped fighting with the compiler and started working with the compiler.
That’s my favorite feature. Rust turns runtime errors into compile time errors.
All that fighting with the compiler is just fixing runtime bugs you didn’t realize were there.
Rust is the most defect-free language I have ever used.
I'd wager my production Rust code has 100x fewer errors than comparable Javascript, Python, or even Java code.
The way Result<T,E>, Option<T>, match, if let, `?`, and the rest of the error handling and type system operate, it's very difficult to write incorrect code.
The language's design objective was to make it hard to write bugs. I'd say it succeeded with flying colors.
I'm interested in what scenarios you don't get this same feeling when writing TS code? I of course agree with Ruby, JS, and Python.
One big source of bugs in TS is structural sharing. Like, imagine you have some complex object that needs to be accessed from multiple places. The obvious, high performance way to share that object is to just pass around references wherever you need them. But this is dangerous. It’s easy to later forget that the object is shared, and mutate it in one place without considering the implications for other parts of your code.
I’ve made this mistake in TS more times than I’d like to admit. It gives rise to some bugs that are very tricky to track down. The obvious ways to avoid this bug are by making everything deeply immutable. Or by cloning instead of sharing. Both of these options aren’t well supported by the language. And they can both be very expensive from a performance pov. I don’t want to pay that cost when it’s not necessary.
Typescript is pretty good. But it’s very normal for a TS program to type check but still contain bugs. In my experience, far fewer bugs slip past the rust compiler.
Appreciate it, that makes a lot of sense. I feel like I've been trained to favor immutability so much in every language that I sometimes forget about these things.
Similar. I mostly design my code around something like pipe and lifetime. The longer something needs to live the closer it is to the start of the program. If I need to mutate it, I take care that the actual mutation happens in one place, so I can differentiate between read and write access. For anything else, I clone and I update. It may not be efficient and you need to track memory usage, but logic is way far simple.
Not parent comment, but TS is generally safe if you have types correct at system borders, but very scary when you don't. Some of the most impactful bugs I've seen are because a type for an HTTP call did not match the structure of real data.
Also, many built in functions do not have sufficient typesafey like Object.entries() for instance
I don't know Rust, and I'm genuinely curious: How does it improve over that problem?
When you call a REST API (or SQL query for that matter), how does it ensure that the data coming back matches the types?
TS allows you to do parse the JSON, cast it into your target type, done (hiding correctness bugs, unless using runtime verification of the object shape, see sibling comment). Does Rust enforce this?
It validates the object shape at runtime, much like you can do in Typescript with a library like Zod. The key difference in this case is that Rust makes it scary to not validate data while Typescript will gladly let you YOLO it and blow your legs off, even in strict mode.
Okay I see, that's a nice secure-by-default point, whereas TS is arguably not secure-by-default.
The worst offender is toString which has different types between objects and is everywhere by default.
What do you mean by "safe" in this context?
If you type correctly at border of your system, then TS will be very close to a formal verification of your code. This won't catch all bugs, but even broad categories for you data is helpful. If you know your input is a non-null string. Then it will warn you of every non string usage. It won't catch whether it's a name or an email, but knowing someone tries to divide it by zero is helpful.
That is an issue with how TS works, but it can be significantly improved upon by using a library to verify the structure of deserialized data. zod is one example, or you could use protobufs. Fundamentally, this is an issue with any programming language. But having your base "struct"-like type be a hashmap leads to more mistakes as it will accept any keys and any values.
Typescript doesn't even support notions like "unsigned integer". It is not a serious attempt at type-safety; its main claim to fame is "better than raw Javascript" which is not saying much.
Note that Google still doesn't have official support for using Rust in Android userspace, though.
Despite all pluses on the blog, NDK only supports C and C++ tooling, same on Android Studio, and it is up to the community to do the needful work, if anyone feels like using Rust instead.
Nobody's stopping you from using the NDK to compile Rust though. Android's ABI is just an ABI like any other. The system doesn't care if you built an .so using Rust or anything else so long as it plays by the rules.
Some people rather reach out for first party support, instead of filling in the gaps for the big boys.
By first party support, would you be expecting a Rust toolchain shipped in the NDK, or maybe Rust bindings shipped in the NDK?
I could see the latter, although I'd still question whether they should be special cased in terms of a Rust dependency compared to bindings being hosted on crates.io.
Or maybe they should ship scripts that shell out to an existing Rust toolchain.
I expect Rust being documented here,
https://developer.android.com/ndk
I expect the whole Rust build process being part of Android Studio, including mixed language debugging between Java, Kotlin and Rust.
I expect all NDK APIs to have Rust bidding crates.
I expect that Android developer forums also care to support devs using Rust.
And anything else that I forgot to mentioned, that is provided for Java, Kotlin, C and C++.
The Android NDK just barely supports C and C++ either, unless you're ok with 1990's tooling standards. The whole thing feels like it's maintained by two dudes locked in a Google basement somewhere. I doubt they have the capacity to deal with Rust support in the NDK, unless there's a big strategic change in Android tooling.
Don't forget this list of expectations for SPARK [1] too, if you want even safer, high-integrity, and formally verified code on Android!
[1] https://www.adacore.com/about-spark
I think we can indeed forget about it.
This is the bomb that sank C++ in 2026.
Have fun justifying that Rust is "also" unsafe, with the right tools you can achieve the same in C++, if you're a great dev you can do even better, etc.
rust has other advantages. I think cargo is better than cmake. I think the syntax is better, I think the way dependencies and modules are handled is better.
It can be annoying to write "safe" code, but once it meets a certain standard I can be confident in multithreaded applications I write.
I would like to use rust to write android apps. I don't really like the whole android studio java thing.
> I think cargo is better than cmake
I expect that Google is using neither of these for most of their own code, but rather their own build system (which I think is the same between the languages).
I absolutely agree if you aren't Google though.
Google3 uses Blaze which is an internal Bazel. And it’s fantastic. I like Facebook’s BUCK too but it’s basically the same thing.
If I were to go to another company I’d promote using either of the above.
What does Android do for Rust?
Android uses Soong: https://source.android.com/docs/setup/build
Proprietary code uses the internal version of Bazel: https://bazel.build/
Yeah my understanding is that google has some sort of God program they use that can compile anything and has 10,000 command line options.
It’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazel_(software)
I cannot like Rust syntax, sorry.
For me the ideal syntax is C/Go, just to be clear what I like.
But I agree that the tooling that cargo introduced is a breath of fresh air in a world dominated by huge makefiles, libraries copied in the repository (I know, there is Conan, vcpkg etc)...
> I cannot like Rust syntax, sorry. For me the ideal syntax is C/Go, just to be clear what I like.
I’m sorry if this comes across as dismissive, but I find it hard to take people seriously with complaints about syntax like this. Learning new syntax is really easy. Like, if you’re familiar with C & Go, you could probably learn all the syntax of rust in under an hour. The only surprising part of rust’s syntax is all the weird variants of match expressions.
Rust has some surprising semantics. Like how lifetimes work (and when you need to specify them explicitly). That stuff is legitimately difficult. But learning that if statements don’t need parenthesis is like - seriously whatever dude. If you want to spend your career never learning new stuff, software isn’t for you.
I picked up objective C about 15 years ago. The only thing most of my friends knew about it was that it had “that weird syntax”. It took no time at all to adjust. It’s just not that hard to type [] characters.
I'm very vocal that I don't like Python syntax, but I wouldn't refuse to write Python because of the syntax. If I had reason to write Python, I would grumble a bit but write the Python.
All three have very similar syntax when compared even to something like Python or Ruby, let alone ML or Haskell. Seems like a spurious complaint.
I mean, Rust is quite a different category than C or Go, if this is the 3 languages you reference.
Rust has plenty of syntax coming straight from ML (okay, not straight, probably through OCaML)
Pattern matching, destructuring, expressions everywhere, etc are stuff that C/Go never even heard about.
No need to like it. It isn’t brainfck and does the job.
I don’t disagree, that’s part of why I like Swift so much. Rust looks very C++ to me.
But if I was working in C++ and had a choice of C++ or Rust, I’d go Rust based on this.
Agree! Swift I forgot to mention. What a nice and elegant language.
Go is such a great language. If your code base doesn't mind garbage collection and doesn't depend on some external library, everyone should really look at go. Great multithreading, memory safe, great error handling, and a familiar syntax for people coming from C++/Java/etc.
> great error handling
Go get this completely wrong! It use a tuple rather than an enum for potential errors. This means you can forget to check errors and just use the invalid (nil?) return value from the function.
On the other hand, rust uses the Either enum to force you to handle the error. Alternatively you can use the ? operator to pass it to the calling function, which is reflected in the enclosing function's type.
Yep Rust approach won. Pretty much every new language is adopting Result style errors and it's been adapted to plenty of existing languages.
It's a product of functional programming, and for me I can't see how you would ever want to handle errors outside of the functional programming railway-oriented style. For me it's just superior.
Pet peeves nitpick: it's not even a tuple. Go doesn't have tuples. It just has special-cased "multiple return values", which means that it's often impossible to just stuff the return of a function call (error value and all) into any data structure to aggregate them. You just can't do without first defining a struct since tuples don't exist in Go.
How is Go memory safe? Memory safety does not mean "leaking memory".
It's absolutely possible to compute wrong pointer offsets. It's absolutely possible to dereference nil. It's absolutely possible to bork ownership and have multiple thread trample a struct. It's absolutely possible to reinterpret memory the wrong way.
I do agree that UAF is not possible (in most cases) due to the GC. That array indexing out of bounds is not possible. But it is by no means "memory safe" to the level Rust is.
> It's absolutely possible to bork ownership and have multiple thread trample a struct.
This is specifically the one place where go is not memory safe IMO.
> It's absolutely possible to compute wrong pointer offsets.
In Go? Without the `unsafe` package (at which point you are explicitly opting out)? How? There's no pointer offset in the first place.
> It's absolutely possible to dereference nil.
Yeah, but that's safe defined behavior in go equivalent to "unwrap"ing a None option in rust. It reliably crashes. It's not like C where it's undefined behavior and you might crash of you might just corrupt random memory or have the optimizer make your code do something even stranger.
It's (really the lack of non-nil types) is one of many reasons why go doesn't produce as reliable software as rust, but it's not a memory safety issue.
> It's absolutely possible to reinterpret memory the wrong way.
Again, without the unsafe package? How?
Rust doesn't consider leaking memory to be unsafe.
Zig in spirit is essentially Go without GC. If GC is not reasonable for your usecase Zig seems like an awesome choice. Unfortunately it's probably about 5 to 10 years out from being stable enough for most people being able to write serious applications in it though (notable exceptions being Bun and Ghostty, but they have solid effort behind them keeping them up to date with Zig).
> If your code base doesn't mind garbage collection and doesn't depend on some external library, everyone should really look at go
I mean, at that point pretty much every language would be a decent choice.
>mention Go
>great error handling
why people so confident being so wrong???
> Great multithreading
Until you stumble upon the countless footguns. At least they generally don’t lead to memory unsafety, just garbage data.
Data Race Patterns in Go
https://www.uber.com/blog/data-race-patterns-in-go/
in the beginning I also hate it, but now is fine.
>I think cargo is better than cmake
That is an understatement. I can't think of a build system that has spawned more attempts to find something better than CMake has.
There have been so many people trying to make their own C/C++ build system and/or package manager out of sheer spite for CMake that it's frankly hard to keep track.
In fairness to them and to CMake, it's not a simple problem to solve. To truly know CMake is to wish you didn't, that way someone else would have to maintain it.
You seem to forget about autotools. Cmake is ugly but I'll take it over autotools.
As an end user: at least with autotools it's easy for me to see the available configuration options with ./configure --help in a nicely readable way. cmake has -LAH but it's still... kind of awful.
At least it knows how to use ninja though.
Problem is autotools doesn't work when cross compiling - the options are there but there is always something wrong, and it isn't easy to fix. cmake can at least get that right. Note that I cross compile a lot of code so this matters to me, if you just do the common thing autolools might work - but make would as well then.
Yeah; generally I find CMake rules are much easier to read and modify than autotools and makefiles. With Makefiles there’s about 18 different ways to write a rule to compile something, and I find I need to go hunting through a bunch of files to figure out how this makefile in particular defined a rule for compiling this C file in particular. CMake is much higher level. I can just see all the higher level targets, and how they’re built. Then - orthogonally - I can modify the build system that CMake uses to compile C code. It makes a lot more sense.
But I’d take cargo over any of this stuff. Cargo means I don’t have to think about compiler flags at all.
I dislike Rust, but I would definitely prefer it over the "Android Studio Java / Kotlin thing", for sure.
Cargo is absolutely awful. It might be better than cmake, but it still the worst part about Rust. It’s completely opaque, and intermixes a huge pile of different functionality.
Distributing Rust software is the pain that it is mostly because of how Cargo works. It’s pretty much impossible to sanely distribute something that isn’t a headache for downstream to consume.
> Cargo is absolutely awful. It might be better than cmake, but it still the worst part about Rust. It’s completely opaque, and intermixes a huge pile of different functionality.
"Absolutely awful" strikes me as wild hyperbole -- you also meant it this way as well, right? What toolchains are not absolutely awful in your mind?
Cargo isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination -- there are a few common complaints that people have and a bunch of sharp edges (most of which have a github issue that has been open for years), but... "absolutely awful" has to be hyperbole.
That sounds a lot like the issues some Linux distros are running into, where they expect to be able to ship one single blessed pre-compiled version of every library, and have each app load it dynamically at runtime.
But that's just not how Rust works: it's trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, and it isn't Cargo's fault that you have trouble with it.
Can you say more?
I’ve found it a joy to use compared to CMake and friends. How does it make it harder to consume something downstream? Seems easy enough to me - just share the source crate.
Are you trying to distribute pre compiled code or something like that? I can see how that would be harder - cargo doesn’t really support that use case.
How would you improve cargo?
Uuuh how so?
Cargo is a blessing for any source-available project. All bundled up, a `cargo build` away. Because don't you dare say CMake or autotools are better, that's just the stockholm syndrome kicking in because you're familiar with it.
Seriously, how a CMakeLists.txt can even be compared to a Cargo.toml file? One is imperative full of arcane conditions everywhere filled with boilerplate, while Cargo.toml is a declarative manifest of the package?
Though there is one very sore point when distributing software, and that is for distribution package maintainers, because the whole ecosystem has been built around the C model and dynamic linking. That is not even the fault of cargo, since Rust's ABI is not stable thus dynamic linking would not work most of the time. Another thorn is generic stuff, which needs to be monomorphized, and as such don't work with dynamic linking (without Box<dyn>); C++ actually has the same issue and is why there are so many "header only" libraries for it.
Can you expand on your reasoning? Because the opposite seems to be true when it comes to projects like uv. People love the single-file executable -- easy to just compile that for a platform and have your users download it. It seems like the uv project is having a good time with that model, so I think they show it's not "impossible". Maybe they're doing something different I'm not aware of? Or maybe your use case is different, so what's impossible about your situation?
Isn't it also the npm model?
I personally have zero interest in these feud wars. I'm only glad there are more quality options for Devs to develop safer system tools.
The only people I’ve met who seem to think it’s a feud war are a few dyed in the wool C++ fans who implicitly hate the idea of programming anything else. Rust is just a language. It has some strengths and weaknesses just like every programming language. Some of its strengths are incredibly compelling.
Personally I’m relieved that we’re starting to see real competition to the C & C++ duopoly. For awhile there all the new languages were GC, and paid for their shiny features with poor runtime performance. (Eg java, C#, Ruby, Python, lua, go, etc etc)
Rust is a fine language. Personally I can’t wait to see what comes after it. I’m sure there’s even better ways to implement some of rust’s features. I hope someone out there is clever enough to figure them out.
That is a surprising opinion. Rust marketing is entirely based - like in this submission - on comparing its memory safety to C/C++ and saying that C is bad!
Even in its own "memory safety" definition, which is the first result on Google, they criticize C instead of providing a proper definition:
https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/meet-safe-and-unsafe.html
I mean we know for sure Rust is unsafe there is whole bug tracker dedicated to all the ways it's unsafe. My favorite is that you can cast any lifetime to static no matter how short it actually is in 100% safe Rust.
(doesn't mean it's not an improvement on C++)
I think referencing the well-known cases in cve-rs[1] is quite a bad faith effort. Of course if you try reeeally hard to write unsound code, you can write unsound code. An edge case in the type system downstream of lifetime variance rules is simply not something that matters in any practical attempt to write safe software. I find the tracker interesting since it probes the boundary of the compiler, but it says absolute nothing to the effect of "Rust is unsafe".
[1] https://github.com/Speykious/cve-rs
This doesn't 'cast' anything. The compiler prevents this because it would allow references that outlive their owners. Freely 'casting' only works for data that is static in nature anyways, at which point a coercion is taking place. Any other way involves `std::mem::transmute` or `Box::leak` and the like.
Here is a nice segfault in perfectly legal safe Rust https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...
I'd call it casting thought technically maybe it's not you might want to call it something else? You don't need transmute or leak. The issue is only 10 years old now https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/25860
Yes, that's an existing soundness hole in the compiler. You won't accidentally code it up yourself though.
If the bar is "deliberately malicious code results in a segfault", get back to me when they fix
EDIT: and even that's being charitable; the Rust issue is viewed as a compiler bug which should be fixed.The unsound bug tracker is were my heart gets all warm and fuzzy in Rust land.
All the ways to coerce and poke the implementation of what should be safe constructs to produce unexpected garbage - and people spending time fixing the issues because they are treated as bugs.
It’s like the best possible advertisement for ”we enable soundness and correctness for all your programs.”
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues?q=state%3Aopen%20la...
Id like to see dev time in Rust vs C++, but generally, I sort of agree. If you use modern C++ with all its features, Rust is generally a better alternative.
That being said, it would be pretty easy to implement some pointer semantics even in C that can do 95% of what Rust does.
> That being said, it would be pretty easy to implement some pointer semantics even in C that can do 95% of what Rust does.
Making a language with memory-safe pointers isn't hard. Making a language with memory-safe pointers that doesn't rely on sandboxing, a virtual machine, or other dynamic checks which produce runtime overhead--thereby disqualifying one from being considered for this domain in the first place--is nontrivial.
Most of these is confirmation of easily observable reality, but the 4x difference in rollback rates, jesus christ.
We all knew rust was safer. It was the 1000x number that surprised me.
Which is more that rust isn’t that safe in my mind, it’s that bugs are that prevalent. I never would have guessed that.
That 4x rate is very impressive too.
Great seeing all this data from a large big complicated codebase.
The issue with most codebases is nobody thinks about starting out with acceptance testing system.
The way it should work is that before even writing code, you design a modular acceptance system that runs full suite of tests or a subset based on what you are working on.
This is essentially your contract for software. And on a modular level, it means that it scopes down the contracts to the individual sub systems. And things like memory and cpu runtime constraints are a part of this.
If you have this, you basically replace what the Rust compiler is doing for you with tests. Memory leaks are caught. However, as a benefit, you also can verify changes in the dev cycle with things like performance degradation, all in the same system.
I'm not sure that nobody thinks of this. We just have a finite amount of time. Usually with a solid approach, you get solid performance. Fixing a performance related bug rarely when it comes up, is still a time savings over designing this kind of rigorous process from scratch, and getting everyone on board with it.
Getting rid of a whole host of bugs due to the compiler is a big deal because you won't have to design this extra acceptance system or deal with keeping an entire organization disciplined by it. If you can solve this seamlessly I think that's an interesting product that others would be very interested in.
> The way it should work is that before even writing code, you design a modular acceptance system that runs full suite of tests …
Sometimes. It depends on what you’re working on.
Part of the fun challenge in writing software is that the act of programming can teach you that you’re wrong at every level. The syntax can be wrong. The algorithm you’re implementing can be wrong. The way you’re designing a module can be misguided. And you might be solving the wrong problem entirely! Like, maybe you spend weeks adding a feature to a game and it makes the game less fun! Oops!
Tests formalise beliefs about what you want your code to do, at some level of abstraction. But if those beliefs turn out to be wrong, the tests themselves become a headwind when you try and refactor. You want those early refactoring to be as easy as possible while you’re learning a problem space.
Now, some programs don’t suffer from this as much. If you’re implementing a C compiler or drop in replacement for grep, you have some clear acceptance tests that will almost certainly not change through your project’s lifecycle.
But not all problems have clear constraints like that. Sometimes you’re inventing a programming language. Or writing a game. Or making a user interface. In my opinion, problems that are fully constrained from the start are some of the least interesting to work on. Where’s the discovery?
I will simply say that Google is one of the few places that, to a first approximation, has this. We have our (pretty good) suite of tests. We can run only affected tests. We can them with instrumentation (*SAN), we can run them under various memory and CPU limits, we can run them 1000 times in parallel to deflake.
Anyway Google has all of that, and yet still finds this improvement.
Writing the tests before the code only really works if there's an interface that's fully defined and well specified in advance. There are definitely times where that is the case, but in my experience it usually doesn't work like that.
If they use Rust for new code and C++ changes are all in old code, this could be explained just by older code being more risky to change.
Funny, another commenter on this post was saying the opposite, that Rust was likely being used to just port existing features and that was easier because there were probably good tests for it already.
If you've actually written considerable amounts of Rust and C++, these statistics don't require justification. In my opinion it's completely expected that Rust code is easier to write correctly.
As a relatively novice programmer who's worked in tech for decades but not as a software developer: I take issue with the idea that you need to write considerable amounts of Rust and C++ for these statistics to be expected. In fact, despite Rust's initial vertical learning curve I'd say that any junior developer trying to implement anything with any degree of complexity at all in Rust and C++ would see the benefits.
At the very least, the fact that IDE integration can tell you all kinds of stuff about what you're doing/doing wrong and why accelerates things greatly when you're starting out.
Oh I totally agree with you.
The logic in my comment wasn't that you need to have written considerably amounts of code to be expecting this, just that to not be expecting this would make me think you hadn't. If that makes sense.
On your second point, I think IDE integration for C++ is similar as it is for Rust. Just Rust errors and tooling are a million times better regardless of IDE.
Oh, the more junior the developers, the quicker they will get any benefit. That's common for any language that enforces correctness, but the C++ vs. Rust comparison isn't even fair; C++ is an incredibly hard language to use.
Now, if they actually "see" it is another matter.
I’d say the same applies for Swift vs ObjC.
Let’s end the C era.
Apple should have modernized ObjC instead of making Swift the lingua franca. Both speed of iteration and flexibility (on which web-stack-rivaling productivity features would have been possible) are gone forever.
Swift Concurrency is a tire fire that not even their async-algorithms team can use completely correctly, and useful feature like typed throws are left half finished. The enormous effort the constant further bastardization of Swift takes, is at least in part the reason for the sorry state dev tooling is in. Not even a 4T dollar company can make a reliable SwiftUI preview work, in their own IDE. Variadic generics (a seemingly pure compiler feature) crash at runtime if you look at them the wrong way. Actors, the big light tower of their structured concurrency, are unusable because calls to them are unordered. They enforce strict concurrency checking now, but the compiler is too dumb to infer common valid send patterns; and their solution to make this abomination work in real codebases? Intro a default that lets _everything_ in a module run on the main thread per default!
</rant>
Swift has so many issues they would honestly be better off just moving to Rust rather than fix Swift. Seriously. The fact that it's so easy to get the compiler to spend exponential time resolving types that it very often just shits the bed and begs you to rewrite your code for it to stand a chance is shameful coming from, as you say, a $4T company. Points to deep problems with Swift.
I don’t disagree with anything you said.
While the C calling convention continues to rule operating systems and FFIs, I think it’ll continue to limp along. Hopefully one day that can be fixed, it’s annoying that C is what I have to reach for to call SomeLib no matter what language I’m using
I think they're comparing new code in Rust vs new code in C++.
I found it interesting that the rollback rate remained more or less constant despite size differences.
This isn't control for confounding factors.
For example: folks are more likely to rewrite stuff that is well-understood, and stuff that is well-understood is going to have shorter review times and lower rollback rate.
That gnarly horrid mess that only a few greybeards grok and has massive test coverage, a long tail of requirements enforced by tests and experience, and a culture of extreme rigor? Longer reviews, more rollbacks, and less likely to be rewritten.
The first chart does in fact a compelling reason to believe the effect is not that at all. If the "easy" code was predominantly being rewritten you would expect to % new memory unsafe code and % memory safety vulnerabilities to scale at different rates as the difficult to work on areas remained in C and kept causing new memory vulnerabilities.
Personal experience also provides a compelling reason, my experience is absolutely that people are more inclined to rewrite the things that are causing trouble in a new language.
It's not a blinded randomly controlled trial of course, it's observational data. You can't be completely sure there isn't a confounding factor that explains the data, but it seems far more likely than not that it is a real effect.
I would expect memory safety vulns to be dropping in most C/C++ projects due to better practices
This contradicts what Google has reported about their own code, which is that most vulnerabilities are in new code
I don't see a contradiction between the statement that vulns in C++ code are generally on a downward trajectory, and the statement that most vulns are in new code.
You would be severely disappointed.
This article is mostly about new code.
That is somewhat mitigated by grouping comparisons of S/M/L change sizes.
It would be interesting to group changes by line-deletions, say to indicate rewrites (and size of them)
> That gnarly horrid mess that only a few greybeards grok and has massive test coverage, a long tail of requirements enforced by tests and experience, and a culture of extreme rigor? Longer reviews, more rollbacks, and less likely to be rewritten.
I'd say that this is likely the most likely to be rewritten actually, because high test coverage is a massive enabler in such a rewrite, and because having a project that “only a few greybeards grok” sounds like a big organizational liability.
That being said, and while I'm pretty convinced that Rust bring massive benefits, I agree with you that these measurements shouldn't be taken as if it was a rigorous scientific proof. It's more of one additional anecdotal evidence that Rust is good.
> It's more of one additional anecdotal evidence that Rust is good.
But that means it's likely to be the worst kind of science:
- Group of people agree that Rust is good. This is a belief they hold.
- Same group of people feel the need to search for argument that their belief is good.
- The group does "science" like this.
And then the rest of us have a data point that we think we can trust, when in reality, it's just cherry picked data being used to convey an opinion.
> And then the rest of us have a data point that we think we can trust, when in reality, it's just cherry picked data being used to convey an opinion.
Calling what Google did here "science" and cherry picked is quite a disservice. It's observational data, but do you have any objection to the methodology they used? Or just (assumed?) bad vibes?
In science, you go out of your way to control for confounding factors.
This isn't that.
> In science, you go out of your way to control for confounding factors.
There's tons of observational science done in a very similar fashion to the article where there is simply no way to control for confounding factors for the same reason that there is simply no way to properly control for it in the data available.
Having been close to someone who went through the PhD process to a career in research, this is a sadly common but romantic and incorrect view of science as practiced in the world today.
Going out of your way would involve committing unethical experiments, which is absolutely frowned upon by scientists.
And many experiments are simply impossible to do in a manner that completely removed every outside factors. But that doesn't mean that an experiment's results are immediately bad.
I use rust for gamedev (not bevy). I'm unlikely to consider anything else exactly because of stability and throughput.
At this point I feel like it's no longer an uphill climb to get Rust into foundational, mission-critical code adoption. The benefits are so obvious. Maybe it's just a lingering religious war?
In any case, I'm glad we're seeing more and more evidence and case-studies of why "rewrite it in Rust" isn't just a meme.
But the approach here is "write new code in rust", not rewrite.
Eh, I don't think it's actually one or the other. Google has taken on rewriting some more problematic components in rust. See for example:
Binder kernel driver: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin...
Media codecs: https://www.androidauthority.com/android-16-in-process-softw...
Yeah, there's also a freetype replacement https://github.com/googlefonts/fontations
I think they're trying to avoid rewriting things for no reason though. The things being rewritten tend to have a history of security problems or other issues that would be cause for a rewrite even if it wasn't in Rust.
This is also happening at Microsoft:
> Rewriting SymCrypt in Rust to modernize Microsoft’s cryptographic library
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/rewriting-symc...
Google rewrote Android's Bluetooth stack in Rust.
Also mentioned:
Sure, but at a macro level the approach is still to "rewrite" Android subsystems in Rust. Just slowly.
Go look at the comments on any Phoronix article involving Rust in any way and you'll see that it's 80% rust haters making all the same arguments every Rust hater makes. You can implement the same safety features in C++ and assembly if you know what you're doing! You can still write bugs in Rust! I know someone who tried to learn rust and he accidentally deleted his home directory so everyone may as well stick to C!
It's all nonsense, but it would be hilarious if it weren't so ignorant.
>It's all nonsense,
How is any of that wrong?
On the sense that you can write a Rust compiler in C and use it to program your software in a better language, yes, all of that is correct.
1. You don't know what you're doing - everyone makes mistakes.
2. You can still write bugs in Rust but the point is you are far less likely to.
Yeah but 1000x less mistake ????? I mean these people behind android project is atleast one of the better engineer but jesus christ if they can improve so much then I dont know how much average joe can benefit from that
It's not 1000x fewer mistakes overall, it's 1000x fewer mistakes of this one specific family that Rust is designed to eliminate.
They've also seen improvements in developer confidence and onboarding time, but not to the same degree.
Rust makes sense in the case of Android, where the kernel and software is rolled by Google. In the same way that Java made sense for a lot of the backend services in 2010s despite its drawbacks before Node and Python got major improvements in speed and compute became cheaper.
That however is a very niche case where Rust is applicable. The anti-rust people (like me) aren't saying that Rust is bad. We are just arguing against its adoption for everything.
When you see shit like "[...] should be rewritten in Rust because memory safe", it shows that people have no idea what memory safety even is. There is this dumb belief stemming from lack of proper CS education that any code you write can just randomly have memory safety issues.
The downsides of Rust is that its ownership semantics are often cumbersome to write, which slows down development. Rust is also still evolving because of the stuff that happens under the hood. And for a lot of things, where network latency is dominant and cpu cycles are spent sleeping waiting for responses to come back, you don't need natively compiled code in lieu of python or node that are way more flexible and faster to develop in.
So in most cases, Rust is not applicable, when you can write perfectly memory safe code faster.
> There is this dumb belief stemming from lack of proper CS education that any code you write can just randomly have memory safety issues.
lol. this take is hilarious in the face of the article you are commenting on. holy cognitive dissonance.
> The downsides of Rust is that its ownership semantics are often cumbersome to write
skill issue
I thought this article was about using Rust for mobile development, like Tauri on Android.
The thing about Rust is you pay for everything up front, and the dividends come later. You pay first to learn it, which is not easy. Then you pay every time you have to compile your code, which can kill development momentum. When you are learning, often times this manifests as a moment where you have to completely rearchitect your approach because plowing forward is too costly. It's at this point a lot of people say "Rust is too hard!" and they give up.
But if you stick it out, as Google has, the dividend is that more often than with other languages, you are not paying these costs continually but instead reaping dividends on the long run.
First of all, Rust has the Haskell-like property that (as long as the logic is sound) if your code compiles, it usually runs just fine. This is why testing speeds up, because all of the edge cases that are explored during testing were already accounted for by the compiler.
It also translates into easier refactoring, where you can make sweeping changes in the codebase and feel confident that you can put it all back together again.
And then there's the fact that the programs themselves are fast. How many times has uv been brought up here and the #1 remark people have is "wow it's so fast!". Fast is a feature, and your users benefit from it every time they run your code.
It's hard to find that nexus of features in other languages. Usually they are just as fast and hard to write as Rust, without the safety guarantees. Or they are just as safe as Rust, but without the speed. And that's why Rust has hit a sweet spot where other languages can't quite get it.
Yeah, I use Rust at work and it's a boon.
It's so easy to bake in proofs/invariants into types, yet you still retain control of the memory model.
One of the main features of Rust is the community, there are so many great packages
Something that will replace/build on Rust in the future is a language based on Two Level Type theory, where you have zero cost abstractions with a language that can do full dependent type theory
I'm glad you said that because that's exactly where my research is ^_^
https://andraskovacs.github.io/pdfs/2ltt_icfp24.pdf
I think that something like this is the endgame practical programming language
I think Rust is easier to learn than C++
I agree with you as long as you don't know C++ first. I actually teach C++ and Rust to students who only know Java, and they have a much easier time picking up Rust. It's the people who approach Rust with C++ idioms who have the wort time with it. It comes down to the tooling, especially Cargo being the one-stop-shop for everything Rust. Another poster here laments that Cargo is too overloaded with disjoint functionality, but that's actually a benefit for a lot of learners.
>if your code compiles, it usually runs just fine.
This was the same argument for Java, which is memory safe, fairly strict in terms of ownership.
The fact is, Rust addresses only one memory safe thing, and that is double free. If you don't understand why that is, you probably shouldn't talk about memory safety.
The dividends never get there if you don't ever run into this.
>And then there's the fact that the programs themselves are fast. How many times has uv been brought up here and the #1 remark people have is "wow it's so fast!"
This is a vibe at best. The speed difference is surely there. But it makes very little difference when there are much slower things in the entire workflow, like pulling things from the internet.
Basically, Rust is a good choice for a small subset of things. Android happens to be one of them, because a) you need native code performance, b) you have multiple teams working on many services and c) you have a somewhat closed ecosystem where you control a lot of the low level things. Because of all of this, double frees are a real threat and can pop up as you are passing data around without strict checks.
> The fact is, Rust addresses only one memory safe thing, and that is double free. If you don't understand why that is, you probably shouldn't talk about memory safety.
How does Rust not address use after free?
> Chromium: Parsers for PNG, JSON, and web fonts have been replaced with memory-safe implementations in Rust, making it easier for Chromium engineers to deal with data from the web
I find this surprising, isn't Wuffs[1] (also made by Google) an even better fit for this particular use-case? (It has compile-time spatial memory safety, where Rust has compile-time temporal safety but runtime spatial safety, with bound checking).
Obviously for general-purpose system programming, Rust is a no-brainer and I'm happy to see Google pursuing their rustification of Android.
[1]: https://github.com/google/wuffs
I don't find it surprising, just from barriers to adoption: "Wuffs programs take longer for a programmer to write, as they have to explicitly annotate their programs with proofs of safety" is a hard sell (even if it has obvious value) and "you have to learn and integrate yet another language just for parsing files" is a hard sell too.
Which isn't to say that it shouldn't be adopted (having not used it I really don't know), just that it's not surprising that it's having difficulty gaining traction.
If you're parsing untrusted data, then some level of runtime checking is unavoidable. And Rust's pretty good at letting you encode "I already checked this and therefore don't need to check it again" into the type system.
The graphs aren't showing up for me on the site unless I click on them
I don't understand the graphs presented here. On the first graph showing "New Memory Unsafe Code" and "Memory safety Vulns" we don't have any steady state. The amount of both "unsafe code" and "memory safety vulns" had apparently already been dropping before 2019. None the matter though, we see a great big drop at 2022 in both.
Then in the next graph, showing "Rust" and "C++", we see that the amount of C++ code written in 2022 actually increased, with rust not really having gained any significant momentum.
How can one possibly square those two pieces of data to point at rust somehow fixing the "memory safety vulns"? Somehow an increase in C++ code led to a decrease in the amount of both "New Memory Unsafe Code" and "Memory safety Vulns".
Also "this approach isn’t just fixing things, but helping us move faster." is an AI red flag.
> How can one possibly square those two pieces of data to point at rust somehow fixing the "memory safety vulns"? Somehow an increase in C++ code led to a decrease in the amount of both "New Memory Unsafe Code" and "Memory safety Vulns".
The first graph considers <memory unsafe> vs <memory safe> languages, while the second graph considers C++ vs Rust. There's more languages than just those two in the first graph.
Moreover the first graph is in percentage terms, while the second graph is in absolute terms.
In 2022 it appears a bunch of memory safe non-rust code was added. Java/python/...
> Also "this approach isn’t just fixing things, but helping us move faster." is an AI red flag.
That's a perfectly human phrasing lol.
I’m a little perplexed why every time something in rust compiles, there’s a blog post about it. I was under the impression Ada, especially when using provers, has been around much longer and is more robust. I just can’t decide if the massive Rust evangelism budget is a red flag or just a curious sociological case study, but I wish I knew the truth.
Rust has the twin features of significant technical merits and a powerful hype machine. In truth, it's neither the devil nor the best thing since sliced bread. It has enough traction that the tooling and developer experience are always improving, and appeals to a wide range of uses. Rust was lucky enough to get noticed when it was decent pre 1.0, which motivated the community to make it excellent at 1.0, and it's been making history ever since. I think Rust got critical mass because it had a bold vision and focused on developer experience enough to get buy in on improving its performance and robustness. Ada is wonderful, but it's less pretty, and doesn't make pretensions. In that sense, Rust was built for the hype, but the language has benefitted greatly from all the attention.
> How can one possibly square those two pieces of data to point at rust somehow fixing the "memory safety vulns"?
The code base contains Kotlin and Java as well
Don't let Lunduke Journal see this post, he might have an annurism.