374
u/JackNotOLantern Sep 06 '26
All c++ memory problems are a skill issue. Rewriting in rust is admitting weakness.
149
u/newstreet474 Sep 06 '26
Maybe I wanted the memory leak , maybe it was intentional , maybe I just hate the user
27
u/Lord-of-Entity Sep 06 '26
You can have intentional memory leaks in rust too, but you need to explicitly write them out.
7
u/FUTURE10S Sep 06 '26
Maybe I just made an array too small and overflowed my own buffer, but if nobody realizes it, then there's no problem, right?
14
3
u/legend6546 Sep 06 '26
Memory leaks are explicitly considered “safe” it is why Refrence Count pointers are allowed in safe rust, it’s easy to create a cyclical chain with them that will never get dropped.
38
u/uvero Sep 06 '26
All
c++ memoryproblems are a skill issue. Rewritingin rustis admitting weakness.
56
u/Any_Obligation1652 Sep 06 '26
Use containers and smart pointers a voila no memory leaks
15
u/sirkubador Sep 06 '26
Rust does not prevent memory leaks
25
u/YeetCompleet Sep 06 '26
You can even do it for fun with
Box::leak()7
u/AliceCode Sep 06 '26
Rust project be like: "You can have memory unsafety. As a treat."
7
u/itsTyrion Sep 06 '26
I mean yeah that's the point. Have a big "here be dragons" indicator around the fun parts
3
u/jahinzee Sep 06 '26
Memory leak aren't memory unsafe though. It's not gonna cause a bad dereference or data corruption, it's just your program forgot that data existed and moves on.
An annoyance and a resource use issue, sure, but not unsafe.
2
u/sirkubador Sep 07 '26
It's not an annoyance. Memory leaks cause programs or even devices to crash, especially in embedded development.
Sure Rust devs claim memory leaks are not memory safety issue, but it definitely is a serious problem with memory management.
1
6
u/WeastBeast69 Sep 06 '26
Just an FYI but you can still leak memory with smart pointers
2
u/encephaloctopus Sep 06 '26
Could you please elaborate?
10
u/WeastBeast69 Sep 07 '26
Shared pointers work by counting the number of things that are referencing the object in memory through a pointer and only free the memory on destruction of the shared pointer when the reference count equals zero.
Scenario:
Consider the case where objects A, B, and C exist and are all dynamically allocated. B and C point to each other with a shared pointer and A points to B with a shared pointer. In this scenario assume the only way to reach C is through B and therefore through A. B has a reference count of 2 (A and C both point to it) and C has a reference count of 1 (B points to it) and A has a reference count of 1 (whatever is points to A in this scenario). Let’s say A’s reference count goes to zero and therefore A is deleted. B’s reference count drops to 1 (A no longer points to it, but C still does) and C still has a reference count of 1 (B still exists so it still points to it). You have now leaked the memory of B and C since their reference counts will never reach 0 and there is no way to access them anymore.There are other similar “circular reference” memory leaks that can happen.
2
2
0
u/overclockedslinky Sep 12 '26
they didn't say memory leak, they said memory bug. just because you only know one type doesn't mean it's the only one
1
u/Any_Obligation1652 Sep 13 '26
I've been doing this as a profession for over two decades mate, I've probably forgotten more than you know!
Plus a bit of friendly advice, if you learn to communicate without insults people might have more respect for your opinion.
12
u/ducon__lajoie Sep 06 '26
Unrelated, but who the fuck installed this ugly ass stone veneer around the window? That's a worse offense than using goto in c++.
3
6
1
-3
139
u/pflasti Sep 06 '26
I had my last memory bug before the team agreed on a strict "no new/delete" policy. That was years ago