Slashdot Mirror
TechCrunch Urges Developers: Replace C Code With Rust (techcrunch.com)
Software engineer and TechCrunch columnist Jon Evans writes that the C programming language "gives its users far too much artillery with which to shoot their feet off" and is "no longer suitable for the world which C has built." An anonymous reader shared Evans' post:
Copious experience has taught us all, the hard way, that it is very difficult, verging on "basically impossible," to write extensive amounts of C code that is not riddled with security holes. As I wrote two years ago, in my first Death To C piece... "Buffer overflows and dangling pointers lead to catastrophic security holes, again and again and again, just like yesteryear, just like all the years of yore. We cannot afford its gargantuan, gaping security blind spots any more. It's long past time to retire and replace it with another language.
"The trouble is, most modern languages don't even try to replace C... They're not good at the thing C does best: getting down to the bare metal and working at mach speed." Today I am seriously suggesting that when engineers refactor existing C code, especially parsers and other input handlers, they replace it -- slowly, bit by bit -- with Rust... we are only going to dig ourselves out of our giant collective security hole iteratively, one shovelful of better code and better tooling at a time."
He also suggests other fixes -- like using a language-theoretic approach which conceptualizes valid inputs as their own formal language, and formal verification of the correctness of algorithms. But he still insists that "C has become a monster" -- and that we must start replacing it with Rust.
"The trouble is, most modern languages don't even try to replace C... They're not good at the thing C does best: getting down to the bare metal and working at mach speed." Today I am seriously suggesting that when engineers refactor existing C code, especially parsers and other input handlers, they replace it -- slowly, bit by bit -- with Rust... we are only going to dig ourselves out of our giant collective security hole iteratively, one shovelful of better code and better tooling at a time."
He also suggests other fixes -- like using a language-theoretic approach which conceptualizes valid inputs as their own formal language, and formal verification of the correctness of algorithms. But he still insists that "C has become a monster" -- and that we must start replacing it with Rust.
Yes, replace billions of working C code with billions of lines of code in a new language. What could possibly go wrong?
Why now? Why rust? What about Ada? They're not so different that somehow the argument becomes that much better than it was for Ada. I just don't get all this rust hype. But, then again, I'm a C programmer, and I am 100% certainly I won't see C replaced in the systems I work on (cars), so it's a moot point. I would, however, support a move to Ada. My industry would never consider Rust. Pushing it over Ada is actually counterproduction, because it primes the C-suite to see languages pushed as a replacement for C as immature. Rust is still immature, way too immature for a conservative industry. Ada, though... maybe not.
Well ain't that a self-confirming statement...
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Basically, this is an admission that the average programmer is fairly shitty. Then again, you don't want average programmers working on anything important, so by sticking with c, you're not going to get the "rust, rust, baby" programmers.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Hire competent C developers and you should be good to go. Hire dumb-asses and sure the future doesn't look bright.
The usual PR stunt of "use my new language that is so good and so simple even a stupid high school teen with an IQ somewhere between stone and plankton in the phylogenetic tree could use it without wrecking anything" is not going to convince anybody here. It's boring at best, and no-one cares about your "advice".
The linux kernel is in its 3rd decade, as most gnu/bsd tools and all of that is written in plain C. They are good and safe. Oh, maybe it's because they are written by competent guys.
Video of some good progressive thrash music
C was one of the most influential languages the world has ever seen, but all things reach a point where time moves and and they are not good ideas for new projects any more. I don't think we should necessarily go replace every line of C code out there - couldn't if we wnanted to - but for new projects we should use better tools now.
Tools do matter. It's just way way way too easy to write buffer overflows in C, even for highly experienced programmers. History shows that clearly. We need better tools that are not so dependent on the human being doing the checking. That isn't to argue you can't write bugs in Rust, just that it helps the programmer avoid some classes of problems. Slashdot readers tend to think "if it isn't 100% perfect and can't guarantee bug-free code then it must be worthless", but that's autism thinking at its finest.
People get attached to "the way things have always been done", but sometimes it really is best to move on. Yes, there is still COBOL code out in the world but that's not a language people use very often now for new projects. It did its job decades ago but we have learned lessons since then and we don't have to repeat the mistakes of the past.
It's time to leave C in the past.
How about training developers on security policy, training mgmt on the need for secure code and the balance between acceptible risk and convenience, proper requirement and tests.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
I have recently started a quite demanding development by fully relying on C and this experience has being quite eye-opening. One thing is knowing that C is really fast (and dangerous), but a completely different story is getting in there from a modern-language background.
C can certainly be extremely problematic in bad hands (increasingly careless attitudes in the programming world, anyone?). Also I don't see the point of using it other than under very specific conditions. But completely replacing it? I don't think that this is neither possible nor logical.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
The Rust community really worries me. It's far too tyrannical for my tastes. For example, they apparently aren't capable of acting like civilized adults on their own. They need a Code of Conduct to tell them how to behave, and a Moderation Team to act as what is effectively a judge/jury/executioner role.
What's worse is when they use these tyrannical apparatuses to attack others. For all of their bragging about how they value "tolerance" and "inclusivity", they so often exhibit the opposite behaviors. Just look at any Reddit or Hacker News discussion about Rust. Anyone who doesn't post a glowingly positive comment about Rust will quickly become the victim of downvote attacks. It worries me when people offering valid, correct and relevant criticisms of a technology are attacked, censored and silenced.
I've used a lot of languages over the years, from C to C++ to Java to Perl to PHP to Erlang to Haskell. But none of them have had communities as hypocritical, contradictory and tyrannical as I have found Rust's to be.
Rust is very tied to Mozilla. And Mozilla's only remaining "successful" product is Firefox. But Firefox's market share is dropping. It was only a few percent, last I saw, while Chrome is over 50%. Mozilla reportedly gets a lot of funding from Yahoo, due to a Firefox search deal. So here we have an organization with one major product, but this project is being rejected by consumers, and what might be this organization's most significant source of revenue comes from this failing product and is paid for by another company that isn't doing so well. I fear for Mozilla's future if, say, the Yahoo deal wasn't renewed and they couldn't find a replacement.
If Mozilla goes the way of the dodo bird, then I can't see the Rust project really going anywhere. I don't think it has a robust independent community like Python or C++ has, for example.
I think it is too risky to adopt Rust, especially for important long term projects. The tech industry moves fast. Rust could plausibly be gone in 3 years, while languages like C, C++, Python and PHP are far more likely to be going strong.
To be able to code effectively in C you need to have been doing so for at least 3 years and, preferably, spent 6 months or more writing in assembler. I am not saying that without this people cannot write good C, but I believe that this is what is needed to provide you with the level of insight that is necessary to be a competent C programmer. To be a great one, add a few years experience.
C is not a language for every one, it is not a language for all problems. But for some it is a good language. The trouble is that some people use it when the, perhaps, should be using another language and then when they get problems blame the language and not themselves.
Anyway: how can you call a language complete if it does not have a GOTO statement ? I'm not saying that I use it a lot, but it is useful for handling errors & similar. I will doubtless now be flamed by those who have heard Dijkstra's complaint about GOTO and not understood it. I remember programs where one in every three statements was a GOTO - yuck, that is what he was complaining about; not about the single GOTO in every 1,000 to 3,000 lines that I seem to write. Yes: I could eliminate those GOTOs but either by making the program less clear (by introducing extra state variables, or similar) or by making it less efficient. His complaint was about excessive use of GOTO, many who have not read the paper, or do not have enough real programming experience, forget that important qualification.
i've recently converted from C++ to Swift — better modern native unicode string handling, and scales really well from beginner semantics all the way to system level stuff. its a great language to work in — and written by chris lattner (who wrote the clang and LLVM compiler/architecture) — so its well fitted for performance optimizations/very fast.
swift is the first language that i'd say i feel comfortable replacing C++ with.
2cents from toronto
john p
The whole point of this posting is that you should rewrite NetBSD in Rust. Without losing any portability. It is really quick and easy with such a modern and trendy language - you might even finish by next Thursday.
I expect it to work fine on a 6809.
Any failure will be punished by a lifetime PHP project.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
DB: HAL, I think I've detected a logic error in the main core.
HAL: I'll get right on that Dave
The strength of Rust is that it has a great static analyzer. ... Use them. No need to rewrite everything.
But C also has great tools : linters, debuggers, test frameworks,
Why replace it at all? Why not just introduce new features into the c compilers, language, and libraries that just identify and correct bad patterns and practices?
Because at some point, you can't keep building skyscrapers on shaky foundations. If the underlying programming model in your language doesn't provide some useful guarantee in relation to the correctness of your code, there is only so much you can do. Even modern C and C++ are very far into the not-providing-guarantees area compared to many other languages that have been designed with correctness in mind and the benefit of decades more collective experience in the industry.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.