this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2025
-12 points (44.7% liked)

Programmer Humor

27965 readers
1154 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
anzo@programming.dev
Feyter@programming.dev
BurningTurtle@programming.dev
pylapp@programming.dev
-12
Unsafe Rust: living up to its name (lemmy.sdf.org)
submitted 4 days ago by janAkali@lemmy.sdf.org to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MotoAsh@piefed.social 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Note how the ticket cited is in an unsafe block, because it uses the OS scheduler, not its own. It is not Rust's fault.

[–] anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 days ago

Rust doesn't have a scheduler.
The issue is the false assumption, that the remove operation can safely be done without taking a lock. This can be done in some specific data structures using atomic operations, but here the solution was to just take the lock. The same thing could have happened in a C code base but without the unsafe block indicating where to look for the bug.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 3 points 3 days ago

Yeah, I'm not saying it's rust's fault. Restricting this to unsafe makes it a lot easier to reason about where such problems can occur.

I just don't think anyone should give the impression that rust's memory safety is not about race conditions.