On 10/27/16, David Mason <dma...@ryerson.ca> wrote: > Fossil seems pretty robust in C, but Rust would increase safety confidence.
Many people do believe that just because an application is written in Rust rather than in C that it must be "safer". But it is a logical fallacy. You should avoid falling into that trap. Rust helps at preventing certain kinds of bugs (null pointer dereferences, use after free). But those have never been an issue with Fossil. Fossil uses the transactional guarantees of the underlying SQL database engine to ensure the safety of user data. Perhaps Rust might be helpful in systems like Git or Hg which depend on the integrity of the application-level code for data correctness and safety. But as Fossil has no such dependency, rewriting Fossil in Rust would not help in any way. Rather than making Fossil "safer", rewriting it in Rust would simply introduce a bunch of new bugs cause by the inevitable translation errors. See https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/www/selfcheck.wiki for background information. Irony: Isn't Rust heavily dependent upon Git for its package management? So if Hg is written in Rust, does that mean that Hg has a dependency on Git? -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
