Get your *FREE Rust cheat sheet* : letsgetrusty.com/cheatsheet

@user-jc7is5nu8q

26 күн бұрын

It is not available for me.

next up: WW2 wouldn't happen if Rust was around

@alHailHale

27 күн бұрын

Probably true

@rithvik_

27 күн бұрын

Isnt that the case?

@letsgetrusty

27 күн бұрын

Actually it would have prevented both world wars

@angelcaru

27 күн бұрын

Germany borrowed after move

@norude

27 күн бұрын

Oscar pfp

Bro really loves retelling the elevator story

@GrantDavisAwesome

27 күн бұрын

He really takes it to another level

@RenderingUser

27 күн бұрын

@@GrantDavisAwesome unlike the elevator 💀

@squishy-tomato

26 күн бұрын

idk why, not like it's a story full of ups and downs

Boeing wasnt just a software problem. The part that failed was the hardware (which you can argue the software should have accounted for) but more importantly it was an issue because Boeing didnt tell anyone about the software function. So pilots did not know the system was doing the "correction". If they had known about it they could have acted differently (or turned it off) and prevented the crashes.

@isomorphic97

27 күн бұрын

To be precise: the software worked flawlessly, but Boeings being cheap and didn’t cared about sensor redundancy. The plane had a design flaw which they tried to circumvent with this „feature“, but in silence so they don’t had to re train all pilots.

@tiranito2834

27 күн бұрын

@@isomorphic97 So same story as the therac then. The code was originally written for a version of the machine that had extra hardware interlocks, and the company decided to be cheap and produce a stripped version without hardware interlocks... tbh, it feels like many of these claims of programmers being at fault of writing faulty software always end up being cases of the software being written for literally completely different machines from the one that ended in production. I guess we need to up our skills and become future seers or something... But I guess nobody really likes rockstar programmer stories where they actually turn out to be right. Makes the rust folks feel insecure.

@SystemDesignNepal

27 күн бұрын

Just commented on that. Yes exactly. It was the negligence of Boeing engineering itself or I mean Boeing company. Software was working perfectly as initially intended. But didn't correct it for upgraded hardware. So it's not that the software was wrong somehow.

@user-lu8fy4ku6e

27 күн бұрын

Facts

@britishlifestyle3432

26 күн бұрын

Bro U just making it up, airbus Boeing uses C++ , because it's has proven behaviour. The memory safety issues happens when unreliable uneducated programmer do the c++ , they have billions of lines of C++ codes and they do have custom profiling tools .. they know exactly what will happens when a function calls how much buffer it needs , so there is almost 0 chances for failing it . Instead of moving to rust from C or C++ they will make more compiler features for memory safety and profiling tools .. it's just a web developer like you imagine that Rust has some magical power ... It's the compiler behind the hood that has some strict rules ... Those C++ programmers in big companies taking 500k salary are not web developer turned programmer in one day , they are highly educated graduates

i write finacial software in rust -- the loss of life when our code goes down is when the traders jump off buildings

@ytfeelslikenorthkorea

27 күн бұрын

win-win (can you start writing software for politicians as well? We do need more of them testing Newton's laws)

@Taddy_Mason

26 күн бұрын

Well then I urge you to write everything you can in python 2.7 and you'll be doing the world a favor... Finally delivering on that tech adage "don't be evil".

@jenreiss3107

26 күн бұрын

@@Taddy_Mason tbh we don't just work with speculators -- if you're a rural farm owner who needs to hedge your supply with futures, our retail brokerage makes it easier than ever to get onboarded. most IB's and FCM's nowadays are suuuuuuper low tech, and before you can trade you literally have to send snail mail back and forth with them. With us you do OAuth and you get all your docs through a react app. my favorite part of our business is the icons we have for lean hog and cattle futures

@gabrielfonte3819

25 күн бұрын

LOL

Rust programmers in funerals be like: He wouldn't die if he used rust

@strelkan

26 күн бұрын

Боромир бы писал на расте!

Rust is my favourite language because it makes me spend time thinking about the future implications of what I am doing as I continue to build. Rather than spending hours trying to debug crap later. You can also refactor with that reassurance that you didn't overlook or break something.

@SemGabelko

24 күн бұрын

Who cares about future implications, you have to live in the present and enjoy the now! - Some javascript developer

On the subject of the Boeing 737 Max, the problem wasn't a software defect. The software acted exactly as it was designed to. It was the specification decided on by the designers at a much higher level than the software engineers which killed all those people.

The Boeing MAX issue was not due to bugs in the software, it was due to poor design. The language won't help you there. It was exacerbated by Boeing hiding how it was supposed to work from the pilots for regulatory reasons (to save costs).

@theintjengineer

27 күн бұрын

Exactly. I saw a guy on another video say it was C++, and the uniformed folks believed it🤷🏾‍♂️

@ulrich-tonmoy

27 күн бұрын

Have to make rust viable somehow

@huihuihuihuihuihui1

27 күн бұрын

Better story would be Toyota's code quality scandal leading to several fatal crashes

As avionics software developer I would very like to use Rust in my job, but it would be very difficult to push through certification authorities. We even have to perform tests on compilers themselves in some cases

@user-pe7gf9rv4m

27 күн бұрын

Does Rust have anything close to SPARK for Ada or Compcert for C?

@fernandoyamaguchi

27 күн бұрын

In the company I work, using Rust is not even an option. Most of the embedded software in our airplanes is Ada or C.

@MrMediator24

27 күн бұрын

​@@user-pe7gf9rv4mFerrocene was mentioned in the video. In company where I work we use gcc with MISRA-based guidelines and extensive testing

@shadamethyst1258

27 күн бұрын

@@user-pe7gf9rv4m There's RustBelt, which is able to prove that the safe half of rust is semantically correct, and that can be used as a basis to prove that unsafe code is correct. I don't know of a certified rust compiler, though, nor of a move towards one

@PiotrPavel

27 күн бұрын

@@fernandoyamaguchi we would see what happens with Adacore cooperation.

If this video were made in Rust it wouldn't have the bug claiming the those Boeing crashes were due to software faults.

While I like the idea of Rust being use in mission critical software, I have to say about the videos than neither the 737 Max nor Knight Capital disasters where the result of software bugs. In the case of the 737, it was two issues: First, the MCAS system relied in a single Angle of Attack (AoA) indicator to operate, against the recommendation of using both present in the plane, so when that sensor was faulty it would provide incorrect information to the MCAS. Second, pilots where not informed about that system, their behavior and how to act in case of an emergency; all in an attempt to reduce training times. In the case of Knight Capital, it was an implementation error due to the use of repurposed flags of old unused but still present software that cause unpredicted market execution actions that cause the bankrupt of the company. About Therac-25's accidents, that was probably a software bug due to improper design but a contributor factor was that the software was repurpose in a different system with different behavior. In the two first cases neither Rust nor any other programming language would have caught the problem because it wasn't a software bug by itself; in Therac-25's probably it would have been useful but I have some doubts.

@user-yv1qs7sy9d

26 күн бұрын

No, I highly doubt the Therac-25 accidents would be prevented by using Rust. We (I?) don't know the exact internals of the machines, but I assume that you would probably write a value somewhere (similar to MMIO) and the turntable would turn to that value. This is just an instruction in hardware, there is no way the compiler will be able to check if the action has been completed, or if the programmer has checked that all the possible events. This is at least one level lower than the maximum depth the compiler can check.

Boeing 737 MAX crashes were NOT due to software. Why people related to software keep repeating this untrue statement?

@SystemDesignNepal

27 күн бұрын

1. Wanna get more views 2. Didn't research thoroughly 3. Setting up the narrative for their own statement 4. Want to spread misinformation So on and so on. Can be anything I'm not saying this creator wants to share misinformation but he could have at least picked another topic or researched more if he didn't know in the 1st place. I don't know, the internet is already a big ocean why don't people dig deeper for some more information just to confirm it, right!?

@JeffBartlett-kj6sq

26 күн бұрын

Was the issue that "pressing the off button did not turn off the stall assist unit" a software issue, or was that just a issue that the training manual was wrong?

@sohpol

25 күн бұрын

@@JeffBartlett-kj6sq There were a lot of issues, including systemic ones, but the softwere was not one of them

Hats off to the hard work put into the video. Some barely noticeable ambient music, and I'll go all gaga!

The Boeing crash was due to a design error.

I think we should use Javascript to write airplanes' software

@letsgetrusty

27 күн бұрын

I heard Spirit airlines is experimenting with that

@danm_t

27 күн бұрын

Ryanair is taking the lead

@PiotrPavel

27 күн бұрын

If only Flash be still around.........

@bug5654

27 күн бұрын

//getElementById("plane").align = "left"; //never uncomment, but for some reason the code won't run without this line as-is

@31redorange08

26 күн бұрын

Probably a better idea than using C or C++.

Wait... Didn't the 737 Max 8 crashed because of faulty sensor and the lack of training to turn off the trim when that happened?

Can we be clear about the Boeing thing? Cost cutting and deregulation caused that...

I don't think Rust would have fixed a single one of those examples haha

Ada is the best for Mission Critical Software.

I'm just starting to learn Rust and the compiler is the best. Hope it continues to be helpful in giving developers pointers to how to fix their mistakes.

I read a white house press release recently that said Rust is one of the only languages that meet their safety requirements, and that it just needs to be tested in outer space at this point

@EduardoEscarez

26 күн бұрын

That announcement was more like recommending the use of programming languages with memory management systems build in, so it was more like "If you can, use any other language instead of C/C++".

I think the mcas Boeing bug would have still happened if it was written in rust…

Wake up babe, new Rust propaganda dropped

Every video is like a rust commercial 🤣

love ur videos man, the hidden quips are great. blagodarju

The type system of Ada is just unparalleled. By the way, if you know it is Ada, as the name of Lady Ada, why do you write "ADA" in the chapters?

@RenjiSann

26 күн бұрын

Because this bloody language is case insentitive.

@jazzycoder

26 күн бұрын

100%

In the case of Boeing: You can still have your code running perfectly fine while having it run bad linear algebra equations. Rust doesn’t have much to do with that. Do you consider crpyto scams to be mission critical software though ? It seems like all the users of rust are working on that.

Awesome video!!!❤

the way rust is safe, rhe way the compiler generates a horribly weird assembler

Hi there, I work on safety critical applications for space industry and I love this type of content, hopefully we get to see Rust more used in the sector! I will follow your content and I am eager to try rust in our next projects!

Excellent motivational video!

Well that wasn't the software fault. It was engineering at Boeing ignoring the regulations. Yes software does play the part but it was purely a Boeing mistake 1st hand. They wanted to rush the production.

The real problem is humans who design those systems. I believe the MAX issue was not a software "failure" but a failure in procedure and design of the software. No amount of programming safety can save you from that.

I am rewriting arch in rust to make it safe 😇

Billions of people die every year because of software not written in Rust.

Дякую, Богдане!

wasnt there a new video about git something? where did that end up?

Thanks for sharing, let’s get rusty together!

Please stop saying Rust is the answer to all issues; not all bugs are because of a null pointer exception or invalid memory access. We're spreading the word like "if you use Rust, your program is bug free"! That cannot and will not happen, not with Rust, not with any other language

@letsgetrusty

27 күн бұрын

But... Rust IS the answer to all issues

@MarcelRiegler

27 күн бұрын

The point isn't that Rust solves all issues, it's that it solves a handful of common problems that the others (C, C++) don't. It's a strict upgrade from a security perspective.

@farzadmf

27 күн бұрын

Sure, if you say so 🙂

@farzadmf

27 күн бұрын

Yes, but I've seen a lot of videos, posts, etc. saying that if you "rewrite in Rust", all your problems are gonna go away and you can live happily ever after without worrying about any bugs!

@crimsonmegumin

27 күн бұрын

when he said that? also rust avoid concurrency fails btw (except dead-locks IIRC)

I assume only seniors are allowed to work on mission critical software?

@nicholas_obert

25 күн бұрын

This makes sense. Also, peer review and extensive fuzzing are crucial to ensuring the maximum possible safety

In the video it is mentioned that the Boing 737 MAX accidents have been Software failures. Which is not correct. The reason was a system design failure with not having redundancy for a faulty sensor. The software did what it should have done. That is a huge different.

When java JVM runs Rust i will use it

That hospital looks familiar, is it in Rotterdam?

budy I know you love rust and can be good, but MCAS is a design problem, the software ran just fine. By the same proxy Mars Obiter software ran perfectly fine just a wrong unit

Is should be noted that type safety is not enough - it just cannot free you from design flaws, so such tools as TLA+ Isabelle/HOL, Coq and others must be used.

Don't mix up "bad software engineering" or "wrong processes" and using a specific programming language.

You once said you would do a full rocket tutorial with a fully working web api at the end of it .

@HonsHon

15 күн бұрын

Pfft you think he has enough time with that given how much he is going down on the Rust devs?

The night capital was due to a bad deployment. Not really just a bug

👏👏👏

I wonder if Rust will ever catch up to C over time, i understand its on average within 10% which is impressive

@nicholas_obert

25 күн бұрын

Are you talking about runtime speed performance? If that's the case, it should be just a matter of time for the Rust compiler to improve its optimization techniques. Given the stricter rules, rustc can make more safe assumptions than a C compiler. What will always slow safe Rust down, and for a good reason, are runtime safety checks. Checking bounds upon array indexing, checked unwraps, Rc cloning, checked math operations by default, etc. However, these are minor performance overheads that are usually worth the tiny cost. If maximum performance is needed, the programmer could use some unsafe code to avoid redundant runtime checks if the code design already rules out the possibility of the check failing (e.g. if a specific branch is executed, then we can be sure that this Option is Some). Unsafe operations like Option::unwrap_unchecked(), mem::transmute(), and ptr::read_unaligned() will speed up your code by a tiny amount, but you must be sure of the validity of your code when you use them. Alternatively, you could redesign the code to eliminate the redundancy of runtime checks while still using safe Rust, which should be your first choice in most cases.

0:25 well it was not actually a "software fail" but rather a faulty pitch sensor and the no existence of advise by boeing to the airlines and pilots on how to shut down the system under an emergency situation, neither the existence of a failover software to override the obviously unwanted pitch down of the plane, combined with the lack of redundancy and the lack of inspections by boing... there is a lot to comment, but the software wasnt faulty afaik

So, the US governement start supporting a language and a lot of Rust videos started to appear to me 🤔

good video (i hope this comment help the algorithm 👍)

The world runs on Javascript, mostly.

Use Rust, live long and prosper. 🖖

Your haircut looks good

When an Ariane rocket misfired everyone and their cousin asserted that the software bug wouldn't have hsppened with THEIR language/methodology/toolchain/etc. Just saying.

There are nothing as "unsafe languages"... It is about using the right abstraction layer.

I like rust i want it to be used more but COBOL is still used so there is long way to go

As a Rustacian - I say ….. erm ….. Ok, sure!

Hello Man, I am very very thankful to your rust videos. keep it up I just had some doubts here If we consider below Rust code. Will you say that its misleading based on your experience in Rust Code: let age: u8 = 20; let first_name: String = “John” Is this misleading ?, i am confused just because i wrote u8 and String there is it misleading code to someone comming to Rust first time ??

@huihuihuihuihuihui1

27 күн бұрын

It will not compile because "John" is &str and not String. You should do "John".to_string()

@noormohammedshikalgar

26 күн бұрын

@@huihuihuihuihuihui1 Okay thanks for that, but if i wrote it like this -> let first_name: String = String::from("John"). Now is it correct and is there anything thats misleading ?

@huihuihuihuihuihui1

26 күн бұрын

@@noormohammedshikalgar depends on what your intent with the code was, but I can't see anything being misleading

@noormohammedshikalgar

26 күн бұрын

Okay, well I heard that using type annotation like u8 and String after variable names is misleading, Its not the proper way to write Rust Is that true ?? Can I ask you, are you experienced in Rust ?

@huihuihuihuihuihui1

26 күн бұрын

@@noormohammedshikalgar most of the times you can avoid specifying the concrete type of a binding (let variable) because the Rust compiler is designed to guess the types (type inference) from context. When the compiler is unsure about the intended type, then you should annotate it or do other things to help with type inference. I code in Rust since 2018

Does someone need to understand the downfalls of C before getting into rust? Or is it not possible to write unsafe code? Asking cause i'm learning rust from python, so its my first compiled systems language

@user-yv1qs7sy9d

26 күн бұрын

Knowing C (and a whole bunch of systems programming and cybersecurity) helps you understand where the restrictions Rust places on you come from. However, it is not a prerequisite for learning Rust. Also, if you try hard enough you absolutely CAN write unsafe code, although you generally have to specify it explicitly. That's a good thing, since you can tell where the bug occurs, because you know where it doesn't. From Rust to Python, enjoy the pain (and most importantly happiness) of using static types.

@waynelau3256

25 күн бұрын

@@user-yv1qs7sy9d thank u! Yes thats what I meant. Sometimes the types annoy me, but just recently i faced my first ever integer overflow, and i realised how much python shields us from this. It's a good pain, I enjoy learning rust. I am still stuck with the borrowing, but rust analyzer helps alot. I like how speedy things run now I am considering porting my simple projects into rust haha

@waynelau3256

25 күн бұрын

@senbonzakura662 thanks! I am guessing an intro to C would be good enough? Especially when it comes to memory management. And I get your point of view, I have a friend who says you even need to learn assembly to write better code 🤣

@user-yv1qs7sy9d

25 күн бұрын

@@waynelau3256 Have fun porting!

I see that people have their a$$ burned because of Rust in the comments below. It is okay to be skeptical. Some people have their vision that aligns with goals of Rust, some people just keep programming in C/C++ (and maybe Ada, but not for long, lol). However, do not spread the hate to the language because you do not believe in its future.

4:25 languanges

@31redorange08

26 күн бұрын

So you missed the first time?

Nice hair.

Videos sponsored by Mozilla & Rust foundation 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Is this an advertisement for Rust?

@letsgetrusty

21 күн бұрын

No, just completely unbiased news

weird ai generated imagery

Billions of critical civil and military software have been running without problems for decades. All the arguments in this video are unfounded, the presentation of Boeing's problem is just a lie in this video, because it's not a software problem. The programming language is not the flaw in software design, the flaw is training, so what's needed is robust and reliable training in software design, for engineers and developers.

Rust is cool n all but just saying “Rust is safe because it’s made to be safe” doesn’t make it perfectly safe… There still can be bugs in the code logic, compiler, or rust libraries. I think it’s better than writing in C but it’s also is worth noting that C has years of tooling that help verify the safety of its programs. Also I don’t know why your fear mongering talking about C like it’s going to kill us all and Rust is the only thing that can save us 😂

@HonsHon

15 күн бұрын

The dude who runs this channel just advertises Rust to the detriment of their informational value.

Not in my watch, because it's a quartz, and smartwatch is a scam.

You can't put a price on life. Critical software should be regulated by law. C/C++ are outdated and developing critical software in a memory unsafe language should be punishable.

@HonsHon

15 күн бұрын

This take is stupid as fuck.

bodgan can you reply on this pls

@letsgetrusty

27 күн бұрын

*Bogdan

Bro U just making it up, airbus Boeing uses C++ , because it's has proven behaviour. The memory safety issues happens when unreliable uneducated programmer do the c++ , they have billions of lines of C++ codes and they do have custom profiling tools .. they know exactly what will happens when a function calls how much buffer it needs , so there is almost 0 chances for failing it . Instead of moving to rust from C or C++ they will make more compiler features for memory safety and profiling tools .. it's just a web developer like you imagine that Rust has some magical power ... It's the compiler behind the hood that has some strict rules ... Those C++ programmers in big companies taking 500k salary are not web developer turned programmer in one day , they are highly educated graduates ..

@arson5304

26 күн бұрын

i don't think you watched the video lol

I think the introduction of unsafe keyword in Rust was a bad idea which can lead to unsafe code.

@MichaFita

27 күн бұрын

Oh man. You're completely uneducated about what unsafe in Rust is.

Okay LGR enough Convincing... Im convinced rust is awesome... Now bring some content... Like Chrisbiscardi brings

Someone send Boeing the chi shi

@huihuihuihuihuihui1

27 күн бұрын

qi shi

Bro is actually a rust simp, C and C++ arent going out for a LONG time, Everything in machinery is written in what? The fastest language is which? Which language has years of usage? C, Rust probably will be big, but not now, it needs to be developed fully first, and tried irl, Plus, the plane issue seems to be of hardware combinded with the airlines fault, And, C can be easier to learn if your willing to read like 4 good books on it, Also, if there were two programs, in C and in Rust both equally as good in whatever metric you wanna use, Why not use C? Good vid, but you should be truthful about where Rust stands, its not coming for a long time, and thats fine.

@eleyondfarli

26 күн бұрын

There are plenty of examples of Rust being faster than C. And plenty of vice versa. It depends on the context. I would say in the general case they're about the same speed-wise. Rust is just more ergonomic, easier to write, harder to make mistakes

No thanks I want something decent that works

@huihuihuihuihuihui1

27 күн бұрын

COBOL is your choice

@arson5304

26 күн бұрын

then you'll be surprised to learn rust does work

@doyouwantsli9680

4 күн бұрын

@@arson5304 Clearly it doesn't. It has a ton of features to prevent working.

@arson5304

4 күн бұрын

@@doyouwantsli9680 like what

rust have unsafe keyword, that's all what you need to know about rust "safety"

@dubstepaztec3573

26 күн бұрын

The dudes video wasn't that great and that Rust wouldn't have solved this issue, the issue was boeing being cheap fucks and choosing money over lives, and this dude rides rusts meat harder then when my step mom was being bricked down by tyrone. But I still think Rust is the best option to when you need safe and fast code. If you're making a web server or website then use Go, Golang is awesome, but I really doubt many devs actually work on applications where safety and performance are big concerns since most people seems to just use js, java, and C# for everything. Rust has an unsafe keyword so you can call on unsafe code because it lets you have direct access to memory like C. The point is that you're supposed to make safe abstractions over unsafe code. And I honestly don't know if it's even possible to have a systems level lang that cannot do unsafe things (dynamic allocations, dereferernicng pointers, etc). For instance dereferncing a pointer and reading into it at any given location is unsafe because you can read into random places in memory and even too this day leads to many vulnerabilities and bugs in langs like C. So if I had a dynamic array and wanted to implement a get method to get the value at a given index I could write this unsafe get(&self, index: size) -> T { return unsafe { self.ptr.add(index).read() } } But that's unsafe because I can read to literally anywhere in memory, so instead I can create a safe abstraction over it get (&self, index: size) -> Option { if index >= self.len { return None } else { return unsafe {.Some(self.ptr.add(index).read()) } } } Now I'm still using unsafe code because reading into raw pointers at any index is unsafe, but I return a None variant if you try to read into somewhere where you aren't supposed which now makes the function safe. I know you probably just blindly hate on rust every chance you get cause most rust users I see online are obnoxious and meat ride the language every chance they get but personally it's super well designed and I think it honestly the goto for future software that needs to be safe and fast. I think you should give it a try instead of blindly hating on it without really knowing anything about it 👍

@eleyondfarli

26 күн бұрын

unsafe doesn't mean it disregards all rules of the language. It still enforces them. The only extra things it allows you to do are: dereference raw pointers, call other unsafe functions, access or modify a mutable static variable, implement unsafe traits and access fields of unions. The other restrictions are still there! It doesn't disable any other Rust safety checks like borrow checking or strict type checking

Skill issue and Zig

"developers love coding in rust" what lot of bs, jesus

@AchroDev

27 күн бұрын

How is it a lot of BS? I write Rust code and love doing it. For the last 7 years, Rust has been the #1 most loved programming language with the stack overflow community. Please explain.

@letsgetrusty

27 күн бұрын

Tell me you're a JS dev without telling me you're a JS dev

@3395149634

27 күн бұрын

Rust was quite literally the most loved programming language by developers in a stack overflow survey

@tiranito2834

27 күн бұрын

@@AchroDev How is it not a lot of BS? I write Rust code for a living and I hate doing it. If I could go back to writing C only I would be the happiest person in the world. Please, explain why is it that only the opinion of rustaceans matters and anything anyone else says is somehow void. Rust has been the number 1 most loved programming language in the SO community... ok, and? is the whole world only SO? wtf. 0 logic.

@tiranito2834

27 күн бұрын

@@letsgetrusty I guess C devs don't exist and we're a product of imagination. Cool.

I'm not sure if a simple memory leak or buffer overflow was the cause of these defects...

the way rust is safe, rhe way the compiler generates a horribly weird assembler