Fil-C is an amazing technology, and we should use it, but we should also recognize its limitations.

An as-written JIT or GC can not be compiled with Fil-C because they are inherently memory unsafe.. which means one of the biggest user CVE targets by volune, Google Chrome, not only can not be compiled by Fil-C -- it also can't consume Fil-C compiled libraries. (Chrome not only has v8 jit, but 2 different GC systems - V8's and Oilpan, plus PartitionAlloc)

Which means Fil-C is an amazing tech for securing the manual-deallocator daemons and backends, but does not secure the biggest attack vector on 2 billion consumer devices.

This is why i'm writing a maximally memory safe browser in dotnet where the only unsafe will be the FFI and RyuJIT underneath me. [1]

I also think we have gone too long with poor operating system safety tools. I want a system based on Andrew Valencia's VSTa's hierarchial capability system. In that system protection ids are hierarchial and infinitelly narrowable without any special authority. So user.david can forge user.david.browser which can forge user.david.browser.site.ycombinator and so on. The closest we have to this today is (relatively) heavy weight virutlized containers.

[1] https://unsoliciteddave.blogspot.com/

Rust is not a memory-safe language. Memory safety, as the term has always meant in language design — the property that programs in the language cannot violate memory integrity — is a compositional property of a language and its runtime: it holds for all programs, over all data shapes, unconditionally. Rust does not have this property.

What Rust has is a static checker that verifies an ownership discipline over tree-shaped data only, plus a set of unsafe escape hatches whose use is not optional but structurally mandatory: any cyclic, self-referential, or densely shared data structure — doubly-linked lists, graphs, DOMs, scene graphs, caches, entity systems — is inexpressible under the checker and forces the program into hand-written unsafe, runtime reference counting, or unchecked index schemes. Because these structures dominate real systems software, the unverified surface of a Rust program grows with the program's structural complexity, and at engine scale the observed end state — in Servo, Bevy, and Zed alike — is that every large Rust project builds its own bespoke, unverified object-lifetime runtime.

A language whose safety property is conditional on universally quantified, undischarged proof obligations across its entire ecosystem, whose checker cannot express the core data structures of the domain it targets, and whose flagship projects manage memory through hand-audited runtimes, is not a memory-safe language under any definition of the term that does not also admit reference-counted C++. Garbage-collected platforms are memory safe. Rust is a memory-disciplined language with a memory-safe subset for trees — and the difference is not pedantry; it is the difference between a property of the language and a property of small programs.

If you would like a rigerous look at this reality, read on for the full paper. This is not an attempt to throw shade on Rust developers. Rust has many great properties. People like it. Languages have become popular for less. Memory Safety, or "safety" in general is not one of them, and we should stop pretending it is.

If the OP really wants to waste tokens like this, they should use a metered API so they are the one paying for the ineffectiveness, not Anthropic.

(Posted by someone who has Claude Max and yet also uses $1500+ a month of metered rate Claude in Kilo Code)

We tend to look at overall "risk of dying doing a sport" and fail to maintain awareness to identify these specific moments.

For example, our family wakesurfs on Lake Tahoe. My wife considers boating and wakesurfing pretty safe. However, in June the water temp is 53 degrees F. If our boat sinks 3 miles offshore and nobody sees it, life jackets will not save anyone. The boat sinking that fast is unlikely, but it is possible. I consider that an unacceptable unmitigated risk, and ask her to stay near shore when she drives.. yet she never does, and when i scold her she thinks im nagging and annoying.

While i'm not a pilot, i've been up with private pilots, taken hang gliding lessons, done tandem skydives, ride motorcycles, dirt bikes, ski a ton, backcountry ski..

..i don't consider any of these activities to be "safe" or "unsafe" overall.. i consider moments of low safety margin to be dangerous and to be understood, treated with extra care and mitigated or avoided as much as possible.