Technology

technology@lemmy.world

89,574 readers

13,839 active

2,408 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago

moderation log

moderators

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

Microsoft wants to replace its entire C and C++ codebase, perhaps by 2030 (www.theregister.com)

submitted 10 months ago by hal_5700X@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world

87 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] MartianSands@sh.itjust.works 8 points 10 months ago (1 child)

The safety designed into Rust is suddenly foreign to the C family that I'm honestly not sure you can do that. Even "unsafe" Rust doesn't completely switch off the enforced safety

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] InnerScientist@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Yeah, to quote the manual:

"[Unsafe Rust allows you to]

Dereference a raw pointer.
Call an unsafe function or method.
Access or modify a mutable static variable.
Implement an unsafe trait.
Access fields of unions.

[...] The unsafe keyword only gives you access to these five features that are then not checked by the compiler for memory safety."

https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch20-01-unsafe-rust.html

permalink

fedilink

source

parent