Pitfalls of Safe Rust

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."

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.

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

If a C++ developer decides to use purely containers and smart pointers when starting a new project, how are they going to develop unsafe code?

Containers like std::vector and smart pointers like std::unique_ptr seem to offer all of the same statically checked guarantees that Rust does.

I just do not see how Rust is a superior language compared to modern C++

Unfortunately, operator[] on std::vector is inherently unsafe. You can potentially try to ban it (using at() instead), but that has its own problems.

There’s a great talk by Louis Brandy called “Curiously Recurring C++ Bugs at Facebook” [0] that covers this really well, along with std::map’s operator[] and some more tricky bugs. An interesting question to ask if you try to watch that talk is: How does Rust design around those bugs, and what trade offs does it make?

[0]: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lkgszkPnV8g

Thank you for sharing. Seems I still have more to learn!

It seems the bug you are flagging here is a null reference bug - I know Rust has Optional as a workaround for “null”

Are there any pitfalls in Rust when Optional does not return anything? Or does Optional close this bug altogether? I saw Optional pop up in Java to quiet down complaints on null pointer bugs but remained skeptical whether or not it was better to design around the fact that there could be the absence of “something” coming into existence when it should have been initialized