That would be awesome (:

I’m impressed that QT runs clean enough under ubsan for daily use.

Sure, if the memory error is an immediately crashing one like a null per deref, but if is (for example) a memory corruption (e.g. an out of bounds write or a write-after-free) then this would be super helpful in exposing where those are happening at the source.

That’s what “catch” means here. As in, catch it in the act. Tools that make bugs crash more reliably and closer to the source of the problem are extremely valuable.

While I’m always thankful when people give the broad perspective and context in a discussion, which your comment does. The specifics of this particular project’s usage of almost-C is not something I could have quickly figured out, so thanks. For such a large program, an to be as old as Qt is at this point, I find it impressive and slightly amazing that it has in some sense self-limited its divergence from standard C. It would be interesting to see what something like SQLite includes in its almost-C.

Sure fooled me. I follow his Twitter account and there isn't much he hasn't got building with it at this point. UX comes later. Amazing it's the random work of one person

Great, if you are right everyone is going to be using Rust eventually.

I like the concepts proposed by Rust but do not like fighting with the borrow checker or sprinkling code with box, ref, cell, rc, refcell, etc.

At some point there’s going to be a better designed language that makes these pain point go away.

The real answer should have been a new language that has memory safety without all the extra conceptual changes and orthogonal subsystems that Rust brings. The core value of safety did not need the reinvention of everything else with the accompanying complexity and cognitive load. For example Zig which instead of introducing a new metaprogramkming language, it uses...... Zig - imagine using the same language instead of inventing a new additional language with all the accompanying complexity and cognitive load and problems. Rust is for those who revel in complexity. And traits - traits and extra complexity not needed for safety. And result and option and move by dedfault - none of these things were needed but they all add up to more complexity and unfamiliarity and cognitive load. And when you add it all together and intertwine it you end up with something so unfamiliar that it no longer looks like "ordinary programming" it looks like something from the Cambrian period.

I’m apparently comment happy on this OP, but, the typing of it looks funny because it starts the sentence, I’m pretty sure OP was saying safER, as opposed to SAFE (as in totally safe instead of comparatively safer). I have been quite charitable to OP in some sibling comments and will do so here. I think OP is attempting to give Fil-C some credit for being an attempt to increase the overall memory safety of existing code without incurring the complexity of a new language or the complexity of rewriting long running/widely distributed code. It is a decent sentiment and a viable methodology to achieve a laudable goal, but is certainly susceptible to caveats like the performance penalty you mention.

I’m going to start this comment by specifying that I don’t know what OP was considering complex about Rust and, unfortunately, a large amount of discussion on the topic tends toward strawman-ing by people looking to argue the ‘anti-Rust’ side of said discussions. Additionally, the lack of a contextual and well considered position against some aspect of Rust, as a language, is very common, and at worst the negative take is really just a overall confrontational stance against Rust’s uptick in usage broadly and its community of users, as perceived (and also strawmanned), in a generally negative light. But since borrowing is not explicitly mentioned by GP, I will give a slightly different position than he might, but I think this is an interesting perspective difference to discuss and not a blatant ad hom argument used to ‘fight’ Rust users on the internet.

From my position the complexity incurred by ownership semantics in Rust does not stem from Rust’s ‘formalization’ and semi-reification of a particular view on ownership as a means of program constraint. The complexity of Rust, in relation to ownership, comes with the lengths I would have to go to design systems using other logical means of handling references (particularly plain hardware implemented pointers) to semantic objects: their creation, specification, and their deletion. Additionally, other means of handling resources (particularly memory acquired via allocation): its acquisition, transport through local and distributed processes (from different cores to over the wire), and its deletion or handing back to OS.

Rust adopts ownership semantics (and value semantics to a large degree) to the maximum extent possible and has enmeshed those semantics throughout all levels of abstraction in the language definition (as far as a singular authoritative ‘definition’ can be said to exist as a non-implementation related formalism). At the level of Rust the language, not merely discussions and discourse about the language, ownership semantics are baked in at a specified granularity and that ownership is compositional over the abstraction mechanisms provided. These semantics dictate how everything from a single variable on the stack to large size allocations in a general heap to non-memory ‘resources’, like files, textures, databases, and general processes, are handled in a program. On top of the ownership semantics sit the rest of Rust’s semantics and they are all checked at compile time by a singular oracular subsystem (i.e. the borrow checker).

The complexity really begins to rise, for me, if ai want to attempt to program without engaging with ownership as the methodology or semantics for handling all of the above mentioned ‘resources’. I prefer, and believe, that a broader set of formalisms should be available for ‘handling’ resources, that those formalisms should exist with parameterized granularity, and that the foundational semantics for those mechanisms should come from type systems’ ability to encode capabilities and conditions for particular types in a program. That position is in contrast to the universal and foundational ownership semantic, especially with the individualistic fixed granularity, that Rust chose.

That being said, it is bordering on insanity to attempt to program in such a ‘style’/paradigm/method in Rust. My preferences make Rust’s chosen focus on ownership seem complex at the outset, and attempts to try and impose an alternate formalism in Rust (which would, by necessity, have to try and be some abstraction over Rust’s ownership semantics which hid those semantics and tried to present a different set of semantics to thenprogrammer) take that complexity to even higher levels.

The real problem with trying to frame my position here as complexity is the following: to me Rust and its ownership semantic is complex because I do not like it’s chosen core semantic construct, so when I think about achieving something using Rust I have to deal with additional semantics, semantic objects, and their constraints on my program that I do not think are fit for purpose. But, if I wanted to program in Rust without trying to circumvent, ignore, or disregard it’s choices as a language and just decided to accept (or embrace) it’s semantic choices the complexity I perceive would decrease significantly and immediately.

For me, Rust’s ownership semantics create an impedance mismatch that at the level of language use FEELS like complexity (and acts like complexity in a lot of ways), but is probably more correctly identified as just what it is… an impedance mismatch, nothing more and nothing less. For me, I just chose not to use Rust to avoid that, but for others they get focused on these issues and don’t actually get to the bottom of their issues and just default to calling it complexity during discussion.

All in all, I am probably being entirely to optimistic about the comments about the complexity of Rust and ownership and most commenters are just fighting to fight, but I genuinely believe there is much to discuss and work through in programming language design theory and writing walls of text on HN helps me do that.

I’m pretty sure there is not any realistically feasible way to ever prove your statement. But I hope a majority of people can recognize the sheer magnitude of C++ as a language and take a position that it may not be possible to master the whole thing. Rust is ‘smaller’ language using some metrics (most metrics really) than C++ is another thing I would hope most people can accept. So, given that the comparisons between the two wholes being a semi-intractable discussion I would propose the following:

When considering some chosen subset of functionality for some specified use case, how do Rust and C++ compare in the ability to ‘master’. There are wide and varied groups (practically infinite) of features, constructs, techniques, and implementations that achieve targeted use cases in both languages, so when constructing a given subset which language grants the most expressivity and capability in the more ‘tight’ (i.e. masterable) package?

I think that’s a way more interesting discussion to have. Obviously, where the specified use case requires Rust’s definition of memory safety to be implemented 100% of the time (excluding a small-ish percentage of delimited ‘unsafe but identifiable’ sections) the Rust subset will be smaller due to the mandatory abstractions required to put C++ anywhere near complete coverage. So it may make sense to allow the subset to be defined as not only constructs in the base language, but include sealed abstractions (philosophically if not in reality) as potential components in the constructed subsets.

I may have to try and formulate some use cases to pose in a longer something to see if any truly experienced devs can lay out their preferred language’s best candidate subset in response. It would also be fascinating to see what abstractions and metaprogramming would be used to implement the subset candidates and figure out how that could factor into an overall measurement of the ‘masterable-ness’ of the given language (i.e. how impossible a task is it to be able to rely on a subject matter expert to implement any proposed subset for any given use case).