this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2026
47 points (96.1% liked)
Linux
13540 readers
442 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Rust or any other compiler can't catch those type of bugs because they are not bugs at compiler level ๐คท
We said the same about memory safety: That's something a compiler can not solve. Now it does.
It is nice to see that sometines things do improve.
I thought one of the goals of Java and similar was partial memory safety? If it didn't have null it seems it would be most of the way there.
And don't forget Basic. Yeah most variants had pointers and equivalents to null, but they are 'advanced' and not meant for general code. (Although that's interpreted and you said compiled, often it could be 'complied' similarly to Java bytecode)
@davidgro @hunger Learn the three languages you are talking about before talking about them. Ill-informed thoughts impress no one.
I can't claim to have learned them well, but I have used Java and various Basics over the last 30+ years.
Which parts of my comment do you disagree with?
@davidgro The way that #Rust guards memory is completely different to the way Java or Basic does. Rust is a fully compiled language suitable for systems programming, and the memory protection all happens at compile time; the runtime actually gains speed through the compilation process, rather than having the memory protection slow it down.
The real difference is that the Rust compiler actually reads into the code it is compiling, rather than just making a mechanical translation.
That's true, it is a very different paradigm.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that nobody thought it possible before Rust, but I agree it's much more effective and performant.