> That being said, it would be pretty easy to implement some pointer semantics even in C that can do 95% of what Rust does.
Making a language with memory-safe pointers isn't hard. Making a language with memory-safe pointers that doesn't rely on sandboxing, a virtual machine, or other dynamic checks which produce runtime overhead--thereby disqualifying one from being considered for this domain in the first place--is nontrivial.
Rust has things that have dynamic runtime check overhead that are often used. Reference counters, array size, e.t.c You have to have runtime checks because of Rice's theorem.
The only way around this would be to have a absolutely strict type system that defines the finite sets of data that memory can hold.
But for compile time checks, its not hard. For example, the I would do it C is that every pointer gets an optional permission id through some syntax when created. Any expression involving modifying that pointer needs to have the appropriate permission id stated, any dereference operation needs to have the appropriate permission stated, and free is only limited to the function where the pointer was created with malloc. Then any pointer created in assignment from an expression involving that pointer inherits the permission id.
So you simply have a system of tracing where memory gets used.
But all of this is overkill tbh, when you can just use existing static memory analyzers that pretty much do the same thing. And coupled with dynamic memory analyzers like valgrind with appropriate testing, you don't even need to do runtime checks within your code.
So your claim is that sufficiently careful C is just as safe as rust?
Seems like a pretty wild claim to make in the comment thread of this article. Google has some of the most careful engineers in the business. They use valgrind & ubsan & friends religiously. And yet this is their conclusion:
> Our historical data for C and C++ shows a density of closer to 1,000 memory safety vulnerabilities per MLOC. Our Rust code is currently tracking at a density orders of magnitude lower: a more than 1000x reduction.
C is not as memory safe as rust. And it cannot be made as safe as rust with a few bolted on tools and programming tricks.
I agree that C is a basket case when it comes to safety and security.
The CPU and the hardware don’t care how confident C coders are in their ability.
C developers tend to forget the reason why Windows and UNIX like systems are now quite robust is that there has been over 50 years of turd polishing. Unfortunately for rust it is not immune to bugs other than memory safety issues. I think that it is a good idea to write new code in rust. Less so for battle hardened old code.
C++ is somewhere between C and rust. With modern ‘good practices’ (no raw pointers, no for loops) it can be an order of magnitude or two safer than C.