this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
77 points (93.3% liked)

Programming

17133 readers
420 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nous@programming.dev 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

How are they not memory safe in a multi-threadded context?

[–] unique_hemp@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

There's nothing to prevent data races. I myself have fallen into the trap of using the same list from multiple threads.

[–] nous@programming.dev 3 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

I don't think data races are generally considered a memory safety issue. And a lot of languages do not do much to prevent them but are still widely considered memory safe.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

Even though they are not what people mean when they say "memory-safe", it is technically a kind of memory safety. It is unsafe to modify non-mutexed/non-atomic memory that another thread might be modifying at the same time.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 2 points 13 hours ago

Yeah, that is why I prefixed that whole comment with "arguably".

I feel like the definition of memory safety is currently evolving, because I do think data races should be considered a memory safety issue.
You've got a portion of memory and access to it can be done wrongly, if the programmer isn't careful. That's what memory safety is supposed to prevent.

Rust prevents that by blocking you from passing a pointer for the same section of memory into different threads, unless you use a mutex or similar.
And because Rust sets a new safety standard, I feel like we'll not refer to Java and such as "memory-safe" in twenty years, much like you wouldn't call a car from the 90s particularly safe, even though it was at the time.