> Okay, but what are you comparing it against? Neither C or C++ have builtin benchmarking or even tests.
If you use CMake, you do get tests for free at least.
> Maybe it's worth the hassle of making array manipulation slightly less convenient for the sake of security?
On my computer I will always choose speed over security... especially for video processing & stuff like this. Wasting CPU cycles has a direct effect on my energy bill. Other people may do other tradeoffs.
>If you use CMake, you do get tests for free at least.
CMake is not part of C. Tests and (soon) benchmarks are parts of Rust. That makes a big difference in practice.
Besides if third party solutions are considered it won't be difficult to come up with one for Rust.
>On my computer I will always choose speed over security... especially for video processing & stuff like this.
It's true that the prospect of running unoptimized codecs is not very appealing. That being said when I think about it video and audio streams are probably the main source of untrusted 3rd party data that I actually handle on my computer. And it's not simple processing either, it's quite complex.
Imagine the havok if a zeroday in a popular codec library is found and an attacker manages to ship it on a popular tracker in the form of "Game of Thrones S07E04.mkv". The payoff would be immense. I wouldn't run a random executable found on bittorent but I won't think twice about opening a video file.
> On my computer I will always choose speed over security... especially for video processing & stuff like this.
What's the worst that could happen? It's not like video, image and audio codec implementations get exploited much, right?
In case that sarcasm was too subtle, I think you would be hard pressed to find a popular implementation of common media format (h.264, mp3, JPEG, GIF, etc) that hasn't had an exploit at some time.
It's your choice what to run, but I can't help but be somewhat annoyed at the professed position because it doesn't just affect you when it goes wrong.
CMake--not lack of static analysis--is the primary reason I moved to Rust from C++. Safety is something I came to appreciate later. Building binaries is a solved problem; there's no reason to allocate project time crafting and maintaining a build system for each individual project.
> On my computer I will always choose speed over security... especially for video processing & stuff like this. Wasting CPU cycles has a direct effect on my energy bill. Other people may do other tradeoffs.
Rust allows you to make that tradeoff, ridiculous though it may be.
If you use CMake, you do get tests for free at least.
> Maybe it's worth the hassle of making array manipulation slightly less convenient for the sake of security?
On my computer I will always choose speed over security... especially for video processing & stuff like this. Wasting CPU cycles has a direct effect on my energy bill. Other people may do other tradeoffs.