Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Safety-Critical Rust Consortium Announced

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Safety-Critical Rust Consortium Announced

    Phoronix: Safety-Critical Rust Consortium Announced

    In aiming to make the Rust programming language more suitable for safety-critical software like within automobiles, aviation, and other industries, the Safety-Critical Rust Consortium was announced today...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    If we reach a safety level where you get bug bounties for simply crashing softwares made in Rust, they have succeeded.

    Comment


    • #3
      Amazing to see, I still think there can be more work done on reporting undefined behavior that can be caused in unsafe{}, while in Zig it could be reported for example as double free error, or provide the stack trace that leads to where the memory allocation occurred

      Comment


      • #4
        Does any country use rust to write nuclear missile system?

        Comment


        • #5
          Finally! Given the momentum of Rust, it was only a matter of time before the HiRel industry would gather around and embrace Rust as a sane replacement for C/C++. I guess we will "soon" see something like:
          • MISRA Rust rules.
          • Safety validated compilers. Likely some slow moving forks of rustc.
          • Safety validated libraries with no or controlled use of dynamic allocation.
          • Rust support/bindings for some of the existing safety validated RTOS' out there.
          C/C++ is really the wrong tool for the job, but nobody wanted to program in Ada

          Comment


          • #6
            Isn't rust safety-critical as their users always claim?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Setif View Post
              Isn't rust safety-critical as their users always claim?
              Not by a long shot. Rust's tendency to forcefully crash whenever it thinks a correctness-condition is violated makes it absolutely unsuitable for anything safety-related. Why? The last thing you want is an airplane's autopilot or your nuclear reactor's cooling system to crash. Not even under a detected fault condition. Some of these problems in Rust got solved already as part of trying to make it fit for the Linux kernel. Other problems remain.

              Rust fans claim many things. Most have no clue what is actually required of embedded system, let alone of safety-critical systems. They think all one needs is memory-safety and thread-safety, by the way none of which Rust provides 100%. But yes, it is much safer than C.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Setif View Post
                Isn't rust safety-critical as their users always claim?
                Tell us you didn't read the article, without telling us you didn't read the article

                Comment


                • #9
                  Isn't rust safety-critical as their users always claim?
                  You would think so by all the hype... Why need or a consortium then? Why, from what I hear, Rust is the salvation of program writers everywhere to write no bug code. Even 5 year olds with no formal training can use it 'safely'. It's so good, it almost writes itself . Sarcasm mode off. Got to look past the hype . I've tried to like Rust, but it certainly doesn't 'click' for me.
                  Last edited by rclark; 12 June 2024, 02:48 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ultimA View Post

                    Not by a long shot. Rust's tendency to forcefully crash whenever it thinks a correctness-condition is violated makes it absolutely unsuitable for anything safety-related. Why? The last thing you want is an airplane's autopilot or your nuclear reactor's cooling system to crash. Not even under a detected fault condition. Some of these problems in Rust got solved already as part of trying to make it fit for the Linux kernel. Other problems remain.

                    Rust fans claim many things. Most have no clue what is actually required of embedded system, let alone of safety-critical systems. They think all one needs is memory-safety and thread-safety, by the way none of which Rust provides 100%. But yes, it is much safer than C.
                    The passengers of the airplane would be casual martyrs for the great betterment of Rust, as their deaths would hopefully draw attention to Rust's issues.
                    We, the Rust fanboys, greet you in the love and in the light of the One Infinite Creator also known as The Rust Foundation

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X