The cultural differences between C developers and non-C developers never ceases to amaze me.
The definition of unacceptable behaviour is so different. A program exit on an exploitable vulnerability is considered unacceptable. The program must continue running, even though all hope should have been lost by this point!
Meanwhile on the other side of the ocean, it would be unacceptable for a program to enable the complete take over of a system!
Getting the panics out of a rust codebase should much simpler than fuzzing out UB. After a few iterations, there won't be any panics whatsoever.
Honestly what I'm seeing here is essentially that C is being preferred, because it lets you sweep the problem under the rug, because UB is such a diffuse concept with unusual consequences. Whereas a panic is concrete and requires immediate attention, attention that will make the program better in the long run.
The definition of unacceptable behaviour is so different. A program exit on an exploitable vulnerability is considered unacceptable. The program must continue running, even though all hope should have been lost by this point!
Meanwhile on the other side of the ocean, it would be unacceptable for a program to enable the complete take over of a system!
Getting the panics out of a rust codebase should much simpler than fuzzing out UB. After a few iterations, there won't be any panics whatsoever.
Honestly what I'm seeing here is essentially that C is being preferred, because it lets you sweep the problem under the rug, because UB is such a diffuse concept with unusual consequences. Whereas a panic is concrete and requires immediate attention, attention that will make the program better in the long run.