[nerdile]

Title is slightly misleading but the content is good. It's the "Safe Rust" in the title that's weird to me. These apply to Rust altogether, you don't avoid them by writing unsafe Rust code. They also aren't unique to Rust.

A less baity title might be "Rust pitfalls: Runtime correctness beyond memory safety."

[burakemir]

It is consistent with the way the Rust community uses "safe": as "passes static checks and thus protects from many runtime errors."

This regularly drives C++ programmers mad: the statement "C++ is all unsafe" is taken as some kind of hyperbole, attack or dogma, while the intent may well be to factually point out the lack of statically checked guarantees.

It is subtle but not inconsistent that strong static checks ("safe Rust") may still leave the possibility of runtime errors. So there is a legitimate, useful broader notion of "safety" where Rust's static checking is not enough. That's a bit hard to express in a title - "correctness" is not bad, but maybe a bit too strong.

[whytevuhuni]

No, the Rust community almost universally understands "safe" as referring to memory safety, as per Rust's documentation, and especially the unsafe book, aka Rustonomicon [1]. In that regard, Safe Rust is safe, Unsafe Rust is unsafe, and C++ is also unsafe. I don't think anyone is saying "C++ is all unsafe."

You might be talking about "correct", and that's true, Rust generally favors correctness more than most other languages (e.g. Rust being obstinate about turning a byte array into a file path, because not all file paths are made of byte arrays, or e.g. the myriad string types to denote their semantics).

[1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/meet-safe-and-unsafe.html

[bigstrat2003]

The problem with the title is that the phrase "pitfalls of safe rust" implies that these pitfalls are unique to, or made worse by, safe rust. But they aren't. They are challenges in any programming language, which are no worse in rust than elsewhere.

It's like if I wrote an article "pitfalls of Kevlar vests" which talked about how they don't protect you from being shot in the head. It's technically correct, but misleading.

[antonvs]

> This regularly drives C++ programmers mad

I thought the C++ language did that.

[quotemstr]

Safe Rust code doesn't have accidental remote code execution. C++ often does. C++ people need to stop pretending that "safety" is some nebulous and ill-defined thing. Everyone, even C++ people, shows perfectly damn well what it means. C++ people are just miffed that Rust built it while they slept.

[NoTeslaThrow]

If english had static checks this kind of runtime pedantry would be unnecessary. Sometimes it's nice to devote part of your brain to productivity rather than checking coherence.