"safer"
what is safer about a language that has macros and the ability to tamper with memory directly versus another that has a lot of obstacles to doing this kind of tampering?
the only difference in memory safety between the two languages is you can get a performance problem in Go if you just fling out a bazillion new buffers for no reason, use them once and then forget about them... and then you need to consider a freelist
there is no buffer overflow vulnerability in valid code in either language
i tell you what the safety problem with rust is
the protocol has to be designed to be secure, most vulns these days are protocol level not buffer overflow
so, Rust is fixing a problem from 20 years ago with an overly complex syntax that really is just hints for a really dumb GC, and go has a sophisticated, 15 year old GC that builds upon its own experience and that of Java's GCs and other GC using languages
this "safety" thing is illusory
what's unsafe is hard to read code, and complex syntax and the red flag is that it takes 100 times longer to compile it
mleku / mleku™️
npub1fj…mleku
2024-09-16 15:51:37
in reply to nevent1q…e9lg
Author Public Key
npub1fjqqy4a93z5zsjwsfxqhc2764kvykfdyttvldkkkdera8dr78vhsmmlekuPublished at
2024-09-16 15:51:37Event JSON
{
"id": "7e76f5ae69c004ea4b9461c46e884eff6d151aaf44a14320f0d4913924acc894",
"pubkey": "4c800257a588a82849d049817c2bdaad984b25a45ad9f6dad66e47d3b47e3b2f",
"created_at": 1726501897,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"f683e87035f7ad4f44e0b98cfbd9537e16455a92cd38cefc4cb31db7557f5ef2",
"wss://auth.nostr1.com/",
"pippellia"
],
[
"p",
"3fcf32612554edf8d94957a05da0b522b19cccbb4ad12289a1294670dba8b293",
"wss://relay.damus.io/",
"choss"
],
[
"p",
"75656740209960c74fe373e6943f8a21ab896889d8691276a60f86aadbc8f92a",
"wss://relay.damus.io/",
"Daniel Wigton"
],
[
"e",
"9306fcd196544fa1c6798d9dbcf99b87bf6cb98299d97bbc12b141041aad3c6a",
"wss://nostr.land/",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"046522b1df4e34773f238d4ebbeec6748145bb310c6cc5118fab4a580eff7ba8",
"mention"
],
[
"e",
"240dc54224c84dbaef8d48ccde6a884ae23d7a3ab08f450ac0a7ae43950adc11",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"e",
"31f93552a521f4c52051ede7989f2b58f3760da0a8a32bbc8520030633a5630c",
"wss://relay.damus.io/",
"reply",
"75656740209960c74fe373e6943f8a21ab896889d8691276a60f86aadbc8f92a"
]
],
"content": "\"safer\"\n\nwhat is safer about a language that has macros and the ability to tamper with memory directly versus another that has a lot of obstacles to doing this kind of tampering?\n\nthe only difference in memory safety between the two languages is you can get a performance problem in Go if you just fling out a bazillion new buffers for no reason, use them once and then forget about them... and then you need to consider a freelist\n\nthere is no buffer overflow vulnerability in valid code in either language\n\ni tell you what the safety problem with rust is\n\nthe protocol has to be designed to be secure, most vulns these days are protocol level not buffer overflow\n\nso, Rust is fixing a problem from 20 years ago with an overly complex syntax that really is just hints for a really dumb GC, and go has a sophisticated, 15 year old GC that builds upon its own experience and that of Java's GCs and other GC using languages\n\nthis \"safety\" thing is illusory\n\nwhat's unsafe is hard to read code, and complex syntax and the red flag is that it takes 100 times longer to compile it",
"sig": "df53977e07cf8cbb070388c1a75138d3227b71aafbb40c947bdf14a0c8ca3ef0163379a60459de67a982f125d83b7021e26f5d802ecaf989bef0c617ba6e5a9a"
}