home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   comp.os.linux.misc      Linux-specific topics not covered by oth      135,536 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 135,231 of 135,536   
   The Natural Philosopher to Lars Poulsen   
   Re: Memory Allocatiuon Safety (Re: Pytho   
   05 Feb 26 14:03:58   
   
   From: tnp@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 05/02/2026 13:37, Lars Poulsen wrote:   
   > On 2026-02-04, Robert Riches  wrote:   
   >> On 2026-02-04, c186282  wrote:   
   >>> On 2/3/26 23:18, Robert Riches wrote:   
   >>>> And, if I remember correctly from when I studied it a few years   
   >>>> ago some rather odd rules about when/how pointers can be passed   
   >>>> around.  Sometimes, it takes a lot of gyrating to declare the   
   >>>> pointer in the right place to satisfy the "memory safety" rules.   
   >>>   
   >>>     It's been a few years ... however I did download   
   >>>     the Rust suite yesterday and will fool around   
   >>>     with it some to see how it's come along and whether   
   >>>     it's worth it.   
   >>>   
   >>>     However my recollection was that if you can do   
   >>>     it in Rust then you can do it with 'C' just as   
   >>>     easily.   
   >>>   
   >>>     "Safety" ... that always complicates things. Look   
   >>>     into Ada, if you dare  :-)   
   >>   
   >> Did a bit of web searching to refresh memory.  The term is   
   >> "ownership":   
   >>   
   >> https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch04-01-what-is-ownership.html   
   >>   
   >> https://luk6xff.github.io/other/safe_secure_rust_book/memory_   
   afety/pointers.html   
   >>   
   >> I didn't find exactly the wording I was looking for, but IIRC one   
   >> of the key issues is you cannot have a function that allocates   
   >> memory and returns a pointer to said allocated memory, because   
   >> that violates the rule from the first link that, "When the owner   
   >> goes out of scope, the value will be dropped."  Largely, it's   
   >> that restriction that causes difficulty when some code is ported   
   >> from C to Rust.  Workarounds to that restriction are required in   
   >> Rust that are not required in C.   
   >   
   > And that is EXACTLY why Rust is "safer" than C.   
   >   
   In the same way blunt plastic scissors are safer than a chainsaw.   
   --   
   No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca