You must log in or register to comment.
I’m OOTL. Are these actual issues people have with the project?
C++ might not be as memory-safe as Rust, but let’s not pretend a Rust code base wouldn’t be riddled with raw pointers.
BSD tells me the team probably wants Ladybird to become not just a standalone browser but also a new competing base for others to build a browser on top of – a Chromium competitor. Even though BSD wouldn’t force downstream projects to contribute back upstream, they probably would, since that’s far less resource-intensive than maintaining a fork. (Source: me, who works on proprietary software, can’t use GPL stuff, but contributes back to my open-source dependencies.)
I don’t like that “C++ isn’t memory safe”. It is. Users of that language are usually just not experienced or educated enough and therefore more mistakes happen.
I agree though, that other languages like Rust or Java can make it easier to prevent such mistakes.
In my experience, using smart pointers alone already solves 90% of memory issues I have to deal with. C++ improved a lot in that regard over the decades.
I’m very experienced with C++and I still feel like I’m juggling chainsaws every time I use it. And I’ve personally run into into things like use after free errors while working in Chromium. It’s a massive codebase full of multithreading, callbacks, and nonlocal effects. Managing memory may be easy in a simple codebase but it’s a nightmare in Chromium. Tools like AddressSanitizer are a routine part of Chrome development for exactly that reason. And people who think memory management is easy in C++ are precisely the people I expect to introduce a lot of bugs.
I’ve a very long track record using C++ as well and I can’t share the feeling. I don’t say it’s alyways easy. I’m just saying that it’s doable and therefore whether the software is memory safe depends on the expertise of the devs. Modern C++ practises, programming patterns and as well tools from the STL (or even your own implementation) make life a lot easier. If you don’t use them, that’s not the languages fault. In the end, how you use the language still matters a lot. If you’d like to think less about memory management, go on and use Rust or C# or Java or even Python if performance doesn’t matter. That’s perfectly fine. This can come with other issues, like more boilerplate in the case of Rust for example, but in the end those languages are tools. Choose the tool which gets your job done.
I don’t think this solely depends on the level of experience. People make mistakes, and these kinds of mistakes are very hard to find. And don’t tell me you are the perfect coder that makes no mistakes, introduces no bugs.
I’m not. But in my experience, using memory safe programming patterns, classes and possibly additional testing and analasys tools do the job quite well.
But yeah. I changed my mind about this memory-safety-property. The lack of enforcement really does make C++ inherently memory unsafe.
whether the software is memory safe depends on the expertise of the devs
No. Just stop. If a language depends on the expertise of the developer to be free of memory bugs, then by definition, it is not memory safe because memory safety means such bugs are impossible by design. Quit trying to redefine what memory safety means. A program being free of memory bugs does not in any way imply memory safety.
Yes. I stopped now. I was hinted towards the usual definition of memory safe languages at another point in this discussion.
Although it is perfectly possible to write memory safe code in C++, I agree that the lack of enforcement makes it inherently unsafe.
I agree that experienced users can write code that leaks less than in C, leaving aside the bottomless pit of despair that is undefined behaviour. But the the language isn’t memory safe, it doesn’t even prevent you from returning a reference to a local or helpnwitg iterator invalidation. you don’t have to jump through any hoops to enable making that mistake.
If a language prevents you from doing stuff like that, this always comes at a cost, since it has to do the work for you, almost always. This is additional overhead you can get rid of in C++ and therefore gain a lot of performance. But that again comes with more responsibility on the developer’s side and you might need to implement appropriate checks yourself where needed.
sure, maybe, but performance doesn’t matter for deciding if a language is memory-safe or not. And C++ isn’t memory-safe by any commonly used interpretation of that word.
You may of course decide that the downsides of memory-safety aren’t worth it for your use-case, that is a separate issue
I think it boils down, how we define “memory safe”. C++ is perfectly memory safe, if you know what you’re doing. A lot of people don’t. Which is why Rust was born. that doesn’t make C++ a memory-unsafe language. It just demands more responsibility from the user. A design philosophy that comes with a lot more flexibility than Rust can offer.
Which is fine. Both languages have their perks. But saying C++ isn’t memory safe, while Rust is, is in my opinion just plainly wrong. Besides, with “unsafe” Rust inherently already the door for memory issues.
Modern C++ practises and dev patterns can handle most memory issues in C++ pretty easily. Consider smart pointers for example, or RAII.
It’s not the language’s fault if it is used wrong.
If the standard is “you know what you’re doing and never make mistakes”, then all languages are memory safe. All you’re doing is arguing against memory safety as a concept by redefining the term in such a way that it becomes meaningless.
Yupp. I’ve changed my stance on this.
Since C++ doesn’t enforce memory safe programming paradigms, it is inherently memory unsafe.
Every source I’ve seen has shown rust and c++ to be very similar in terms of performance.
It’s not just about runtime performance, but also about coding flexibility, and for example also reduction of boilerplate.
Ah yes, I love how C++ is has so little boilerplate. Sometimes I can even write several statements in a row without any!
You’ve missed the context. There are occasions in Rust where you have to use more boilerplate code which you wouldn’t have to implement in C++ to that extent.
But saying that C++ is free of boilerplate is of course ridiculous, if you are not able to heavily leverage templates, CRTPs, macros and alike.
Rust prevents the things mentioned above in the compiler; there is no runtime cost for most of Rust’s safety measures. There is definitely a build time cost though.
You can unsafe your way around anything, but that’s on the dev.
I’m not just talking about performance costs. For example, compared to C++, Rust comes with reduced flexibility and increased complexity in certain cases.
The borrow checker, for example, imposes strict ownership and lifetime rules, which can be difficult to work with, especially in complex data structures or when interfacing with existing systems. Sometimes, you have to significantly refactor your code just to satisfy these constraints, even when you know the code would be safe in practice. This can slow down development, require more boilerplate, and make certain patterns harder to express.
C++ gives developers more freedom but expects them to take responsibility. That tradeoff isn’t just about raw performance; it’s also about how much control and convenience the developer has.
You said performance, so I responded to that. You can dislike Rust, that’s fine, but a lot of the things you’re saying aren’t correct. C++ isn’t memory safe, the person responding before showed that pretty easily. Rust doesn’t perform slower than C++, I responded to that claim. Rust provides tools to be memory safe, but the existence of
unsafeI’d argue makes it also not memory safe, but at least better than C/C++. It also has tons of undefined behavior, just like those two.As for the personal opinion; you don’t have to like Rust. I actually have a very different view of the borrow checker and I don’t think I’ve ever “fought” it in a time when I was also doing something inherently safe. Every time I’ve had an issue with satisfying the borrow checker, which is rare, it’s been because I was doing something unsafe or interacting with C code, which Rust would argue is also unsafe. In my experience, it really eases the burden of programming actually and it makes debugging easier. It also makes design easier. As an example, I’ve been working on a very large C project recently and I ran into a bug where I was getting the wrong data printed out when I checked a value. After looking into it for like 15 minutes, I finally figured out that I had accidentally passed a stack pointer to a function that I wrote expecting a heap pointer. When the function went out of scope the data was garbage, but there was no crash and no compiler error. The borrow checker would have helpfully stopped me in my tracks there and saved that 15 minutes of debugging. The fact that it’s hard to implement your own efficient linked list or vector type has never been a problem for me really, especially not in comparison to the gains of not always having to keep ownership and lifetimes of pointers in my own head or in documentation that may go stale. I can’t express enough how helpful that is to my programming experience. C puts the burden of pointer lifetimes and ownership entirely on the developer. C++ makes that a bit better with the smart pointers at least, but those have some rules that aren’t enforced by the compiler but instead by convention.
Basically I find the phrase “fighting the borrow checker” to be shorthand for “I can’t write C or C++ in Rust and I want to”. They’re not the same language and the constructs are different
That was not the only aspect, but yes, I mentioned that.
I don’t dislike Rust. I find it pretty cool. However, I disagree with the blanket statement “C++ isn’t memory safe”. C++ provides the tools for writing memory-safe code, but it does not enforce it by default. That’s a design choice: favoring flexibility over strict enforcement.
Yes, you can make mistakes that lead to memory issues. But that’s not a problem with the language itself; it with how it’s used. Stupid example: if you write code, which divides by zero at some point and you don’t make sure to check that, this is not the language’s fault, but your own.
Of course a language can accomodate for stuff like that and lift some of that burden from the user. Surely there are plenty of use cases and user groups for that. And that’s totally okay. Rust was designed with memory safety in mind to prevent common errors that occur to a lot of devs during the usage of C++, which is fair. But that doesn’t make C++ less memory safe. It is intentionally open and flexible on purpose. There are various programming patterns and even functionality within the STL that help to prevent memory issues.
So in other words: C++ is a tool, just like Rust. If you don’t know how to use the tool, that’s not the tool’s fault.
C++ makes that a bit better with the smart pointers at least, but those have some rules that aren’t enforced by the compiler but instead by convention.
You can always implement your own smart pointers. Besides that: which conventions do you mean?
Basically I find the phrase “fighting the borrow checker” to be shorthand for “I can’t write C or C++ in Rust and I want to”.
Nah, although it has its persk, I just think that it also imposes a rigid framework that sometimes forces you into cumbersome workarounds. With C++, you retain full control over memory management and can choose the best tool for the job. You’re not boxed into a strict ownership model that may force refactoring or add extra layers of abstraction. Instead, you have a mature ecosystem with decades of evolution that lets you balance safety and control based on context. Sure, mistakes can happen, but with proper practices and modern C++ features you can achieve a level of safety that meets most needs without sacrificing the expressiveness and efficiency you might require in complex systems.
