> I have found that other tools like RAII/drop, the closely related smart > pointer types, and safe containers (vectors, strings etc.) even without > the borrow checker niceties, to be relatively more useful in preventing > memory errors. However, these are features that modern C++ also offers, > along with a seamless integration story with existing C and C++ code. I > find that Rust has an edge in thread-safety, but I am not sure if this > is a strong selling point in the context of Mesa, where the current > design seems to be well served (for now) by the traditional thread > safety patterns.
That's fair... aesthetically I've found Rust's presentation of these patterns to be "nicer" than C++'s (although I recognize modern C++ is a different beast than what I once learned). Techincally you're right that both language have evolved quite some overlap. > As an aside, as much as I like the practicality and richness of the > crate ecosystem, which is one of the strong points of Rust, I do have > concerns about its current security model. For example, the crates are > not signed and thus vulnerable to several plausible attacks, like > compromised github accounts or, even worse due to scale, compromised > crate repositories. This is further aggravated by the sometimes large > indirect dependency trees. Such concerns are especially relevant to Mesa > (and other high-profile projects) since it could be an attractive target > for malicious entities. As enticing as it could be sometimes, I would > be very hesitant to introduce external crate dependencies at this point > in Mesa. As mentioned, Rust with nothing more than the standard library is still richer than what C gives us out-of-the-box. I don't expect to need external crates flying around, at least for backend compiler purposes.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
