TWiR quote of the week

[Cerberuser]

Bound checking really present?

vector[10] desugars to a function call <Vec as std::ops::Index>::index(&vector, 10) , which in this case panics, but it could as well play a song and return -1 on out of bounds access.

However, the safety — at run time — is still guaranteed.

Undefined behaviour never was so nice! (Yes, I know that it’s well defined by implementation, but doesn’t this sound like it?)

[davidsullins]

Everything about Rust is ironic.

• @jessitron on Twitter

[CAD97]

Help getting started with converting c project

It’s like building stuff with LEGO. Sure, it could be a single type, but then you’d need a type for every possible combination of types, which would arguably be a whole lot worse.

Who doesn’t like building abstractions like LEGO

[BatmanAoD]

This needs some more context. “It” here refers to “nested generic types”. So:

[Using a nested generic types is] like building stuff with LEGO…

[pyfisch]

Not sure if you want to reference r/rustjerk in the quote but I post this anyways:

I’ve found that people who hate the borrow checker are usually ones that can’t figure out why they always have so many weird bugs

by Inityx

[futile]

Title of this reddit post:

“The Bug I did not have”

by u/pacman82

[scottmcm]

I’m batch-processing thousands of high-resolution TIFF images so these are processes that I start at the end of the day and let run overnight. I have multiple Java implementations that can do this; none of them perform at the same level as my novice Rust implementations.

From https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/a1l3ze/its_time_to_look_in_the_mirror_why_i_am_moving_to/eat1xhk/

[dylan.dpc]

The security barrier must be earlier. It will make everything easier to secure. By analogy, it’s like securing your own house. You can lock points of entry to your house, and it’ll work fine for the entire house. But if you move the security barrier to wrong place because you assume burglars may freely roam inside your house, you’ll end up with locks on your bathroom, padlocks on your drawers, gates on your bed, TV stored in a safe, and kitchen utensils chained to walls.
Here, your OS is your house. If you work with assumption that you let malware in, and running viruses is normal part of Rust development, you’ll need extraordinary level of sandboxing paranoia similar to having things in your house chained to walls. It’s going to be incredibly hard to secure everything, and it’s going to be incredibly inconvenient to use the language that has to act at all times as if all your code was infected and dangerous.

original comment

[alanhkarp]

A better approach is to make sure that there’s no path from the guest bedroom to the master bath. That means an OS should not be a monolithic whole, where penetrating any component gives full access to everything. For example, there is no reason why a network interface needs access to the file system, but that’s exactly what an exploit from a couple of years ago used. What we need is isolation among the components of the OS. CapRos and seL4 are examples of how it can be done by applying the Principle of Least Privilege at a finer level of granularity than the whole OS.

[tshepang]

[Rust’s] unique selling point is that it unlocks a level of performance and flexibility that was previously not possible without investing in deep platform-specific knowledge and expensive quality assurance processes.

r/rust - Concerning the new website design

[arthrowpod]

I'll know ide support is mature when the flame wars start.

- My friend

[mark-i-m]

impl Drop for Mic {}

from http://fitzgeraldnick.com/2018/12/13/rust-raps.html

Honestly, the whole thing deserves to be the quote of the week, but it’s a bit long for a quote…

[frol]

People aren’t kidding when they say Rust gives you superpowers. We spend more money on log storage than all of our servers combined. We can process so many requests [that] we have to spend more to store the logs from those requests than it costs us to actually process them.

State of the crates.io — Sean Griffin

Time: 24:29

[oberien]

Using [traits] for Inheritance was like putting car wheels on a boat because I am used to driving a vehicle with wheels.

How to become a Rust Super-developer

[nasa42]

In theory it would be entirely reasonable to guess that most Rust projects would need to use a significant amount of unsafe code to escape the limitations of the borrow checker. However, in practice it turns out (shockingly!) that the overwhelming majority of programs can be implemented perfectly well using only safe Rust.

u/PM_ME_UR_MONADS on reddit.

[icefoxen]

“All the type and lifetime checking is great, but it didn’t prevent me from being completely retarded every now and then.”

Alan Trick, https://alantrick.ca/writings/programming/python_to_rust/

[cauebs]

“The name Rust suggests what it is: a thin layer on top of the metal.” - /u/c3534l

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/abm6hy/why_rust_is_successful_compared_with/ed1k1xl/?context=3

[Cerberuser]

Quite complex description of the “find-this-method” task:

Iterator of char into String?

my first thought upon seeing the question "I have an Iterator of X and need a Y " was to look at the FromIterator impls of Y .

If that impl didn’t exist, I’d then look for the following:

• Other FromIterator<X> impls for String to see if any of those X can easily be produced from char (and then I would call map before .collect() ).
• impl FromIterator<char> for Vec<u8> . If this existed I would use String::from_utf8(iterator.collect()) .
• impl Add<char> for String . If this existed, I would use .fold(String::new(), |s, c| s + c)
• methods of char to see if there’s anything that lets you obtain the bytes. Indeed, there is encode_utf8 , which even gives a &mut str , so one can write

.fold(String::new(), |s, c| {
    let mut buffer = [u8; 4];
    s += &*c.encode_utf8(&mut buffer);
    s
})

• idly check the inherent methods of String for whatever pops out at me

and if I could still find nothing after all of that I’d slam my head into a wall somewhere.

[Cerberuser]

Found this in the old question on SO, looks like a rather laconic explanation:

Lifetimes are needed to prevent errors, but explicit lifetimes are needed to protect what little sanity programmers have.

[LukasKalbertodt]

When a turbo fish is very long, does it become a turbo eel?
– @Enet4

https://chat.stackoverflow.com/transcript/message/45076604#45076604