Oxide: The Essence of Rust · HackerPapers discussions

Oxide: The Essence of Rust — mentioned by j-pb

Thu, 04 Nov 2021 20:46:44 GMT

The shallowness of rusts correctness has pretty much killed my interest in it. Much of its purported virtue seems to be mostly lore and myth, and doesn't keep its promises under close inspection and scrutiny. For example the "Rustonomicon" is only half finished and doesn't have that much real insight that couldn't be gained from a lot of basic-ish rust tutorials. The memory model is not propery defined and only kinda sorta borrowed from C++ as the article mentions. The borrow checker has only been formally specified and veryfied in a much simplified form and only very recently [2] ,with the…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Oxide: The Essence of Rust — mentioned by j-pb

Wed, 29 Sep 2021 19:24:52 GMT

When you push a package to crates.io, docs.rs will do a static analysis of this package and its dependencies and try its best to create meaningful links between the traits and implementing types. The issue is that it is quite common to have trait definitions in one create being used by other ones. Often this is even done when a single library gets too large e.g. tokio, one incentive for splitting being compile time. However since analysis happens upwards the dependency tree, nodes further up the chain won't know what's below them and can't link to them. You'd essentially have to do whole…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Oxide: The Essence of Rust — HN submission

Sat, 15 May 2021 10:56:30 GMT

Oxide: The Essence of Rust (2020)

76 points; 13 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Oxide: The Essence of Rust — HN submission

Tue, 05 Mar 2019 15:06:22 GMT

Oxide: A Formal Semantics for Rust

223 points; 30 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Oxide: The Essence of Rust — mentioned by ktpsns

Tue, 05 Mar 2019 12:18:05 GMT

Obviously https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.00982 was meant.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.