431
average c++ dev (programming.dev)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
110 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I don't think that casting a range of bits as some other arbitrary type "is a bug nobody sees coming".

C++ compilers also warn you that this is likely an issue and will fail to compile if configured to do so. But it will let you do it if you really want to.

That's why I love C++

a screenshot from linkedin reading "I don't think that casting a range of bits as some other arbitrary type "is a bug nobody sees coming". C++ compilers also warn you that this is likely an issue and will fail to compile if configured to do so. But it will *let you do it* if you really want to. That's why I love C++"
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You don't even need unsafe, you can just take user input and execute it in a shell and rust will let you do it. Totally insecure!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Rust isn't memory safe because you can invoke another program that isn't memory safe?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    My comment is sarcastic, obviously. The argument Kairos gave is similar to this. You can still introduce vulnerabilities. The issue is normally that you introduce them accidentally. Rust gives you safety, but does not put your code into a sandbox. It looked to me like they weren't aware of this difference.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent