Google To Allow Rust Code In The Chromium Browser

[Ironmask]

Indeed; often exposed by the fact that Rust needs bindings in the first place. These require a number of unsafe sections and memory lifetime tracking is difficult; even for someone experienced so it makes sense the bindings have munged the memory.

Had you avoided the need for bindings in the first place, many of these kind of segfaults can be avoided.

I don't think you're understanding the point of the exceedingly ridiculous exceptions I listed.
Not only is it impossible to avoid binding to other libraries outside of bare metal programming, but that's outside of Rust's safety guarantees entirely, it's completely unrelated.
Your point is equivalent to saying a car should fail it's safety inspection because it can technically be driven by a drunk person. I don't think you fully grasp how much your point is a complete non-sequitur and outside of the scope of the problem domain. That domain being, writing verifiable code in that language. Rust's safety guarantees apply to Rust, only Rust, not unsafe Rust and not libraries being bound to Rust. That's the point of unsafe Rust, to build a bridge between those two which has to be manually verified for safety, so it can communicate with safe Rust and appear as if it were just another library written in pure Rust. It's not any more of a concern that a third-party library might have a segfault than it is if my computer might spontaneously explode. It's a bad product, not the fault of any language, Rust or C.

[piotrj3]

Indeed; often exposed by the fact that Rust needs bindings in the first place. These require a number of unsafe sections and memory lifetime tracking is difficult; even for someone experienced so it makes sense the bindings have munged the memory.

Had you avoided the need for bindings in the first place, many of these kind of segfaults can be avoided.

That is like saying:

- operating system can have bug in it,
- system api can have segfault in it,
- cosmic ray can cause segfault in it,
etc. etc.

Most (sane) programmers will not undermine Rust safety based on that 3rd party code not written in that language can be issue for you - heck in that case literally every single existing programming language has that issue.

Most sane programmers will see that cost of maintaining bindings and proper interacting of 2 codebases is too much work to make adapting Rust worth. But it is not cost based on "safety" (because result of that operation isn't lower safety, it is actually higher safety), it is that it takes time. Rust in Linux kernel really plans to avoid it largely by avoiding too many interactions of this sort.

[rogerx]

If done well (to be seen, but Google developers are not exactly incompetent), the use of Rust will help eliminate memory leaks (which are a huge problem in Chrome) and make it easier to take advantage of parallelism. So hopefully it will make the browser faster, not slower.

Sounds more like an excuse for just using Rust. Sounds more like bad coding, and using another language isn't going to make things any easier when they are not doing things correctly to start with.

Think I'll be switching browsers. Rust language doesn't seem to me like a good investment.

Think I'll go back to Seamonkey.

[jacob]

Sounds more like an excuse for just using Rust. Sounds more like bad coding, and using another language isn't going to make things any easier when they are not doing things correctly to start with.

Think I'll be switching browsers. Rust language doesn't seem to me like a good investment.

So silly of me, I forgot that Chrome developers don't know about coding and doing things correctly. Thanks God they have you to tell them </sarcasm>

[rogerx]

So silly of me, I forgot that Chrome developers don't know about coding and doing things correctly. Thanks God they have you to tell them </sarcasm>

Yea... thank God!

Eh, you forgot to use <sarcasm> within your HTML code!

[Ironmask]

Sounds more like an excuse for just using Rust. Sounds more like bad coding, and using another language isn't going to make things any easier when they are not doing things correctly to start with.

Think I'll be switching browsers. Rust language doesn't seem to me like a good investment.

Think I'll go back to Seamonkey.

You're absolutely right. You should look for some massive open source C++ codebases to work on and write perfect flawless code so you can prove to Google you're better than all of their developers so they can hire you to lead the project.

By the way, which kernel are you switching to? Linux has Rust too, so it's probably in just as bad shape.
SeaMonkey also has Rust in it looking at their repository, so you're also out of luck there. But I think that might depend on how you build it (I would think it would have some if it's Mozilla).
I would say switch to SerenityOS but they're also replacing C++ with their own new language so I imagine you'd have similar complaints.

[Quackdoc]

Sounds more like an excuse for just using Rust. Sounds more like bad coding, and using another language isn't going to make things any easier when they are not doing things correctly to start with.

Think I'll be switching browsers. Rust language doesn't seem to me like a good investment.

Think I'll go back to Seamonkey.

it has proved time and time and time and time and time again to be a good investment, pretty much every project given the resources has found benefits in integrating with , or replacing old stuff with rust, it lowers security development burden allowing for higher quality code. even if rust is only used in low priority locations, the development burden on them is drastically lowered, allowing you to allot more time to high priority locations

[unixfan2001]

Sounds more like an excuse for just using Rust. Sounds more like bad coding, and using another language isn't going to make things any easier when they are not doing things correctly to start with.

Think I'll be switching browsers. Rust language doesn't seem to me like a good investment.

Think I'll go back to Seamonkey.

Unless you're using a pretty old build, Seamonkey will also have Rust. Mozilla Gecko started the entire Rust in-the-browser

[Weasel]

So silly of me, I forgot that Chrome developers don't know about coding and doing things correctly.

Despite your sarcasm, they actually don't. Tough to face the facts I guess.

Anyone who has worked with Chromium code (or even Mozilla) knows what pile of steaming junk they are. Mozilla's code is also full of macros. It's actually disgusting.

The fact you appeal to authority proves you literally have no idea what you're talking about to begin with.

[Weasel]

By the way, which kernel are you switching to? Linux has Rust too, so it's probably in just as bad shape.

Except it doesn't. Not only is it optional, there are no useful drivers in it (and no, nobody gives a flying fuck about Macbooks especially on M1)