go-licenses VS trophy-case

> I don't think the exact URL is the problem, it is the fact that it is so easy to include dependencies from external repository that is the problem. In Rust every non-trivial library pulls in 10s or even 100s of dependencies.

But it's also quite a lot easier to audit those dependencies, even automatically (incidentally, GitHub provides dependency scanning for free for many languages).

> Then there is the issue of licencing - how to verify that I am not using some library in violation of its licence and what happens if the licence changes down the road and I don't notice it because I am implicitly using 500 dependencies due to my 3 main libraries?

This is also an automated task. For example, https://github.com/google/go-licenses

> go-licenses analyzes the dependency tree of a Go package/binary. It can output a report on the libraries used and under what license they can be used. It can also collect all of the license documents, copyright notices and source code into a directory in order to comply with license terms on redistribution.

> Rust and Go have solved memory safety compared to C and C++ but have introduced dependency hell of yet unknown proportions.

I mean, it's been a decade and things seem to be going pretty well. Also, I don't think anyone who has actually used these languages seriously has ever characterized their dependency management as "dependency hell"; however, lots of people talk about the "dependency hell" of managing C and C++ dependencies.

> Python and other dynamically typed languages are in a league of their own in that on top of the dependency hell they also do not provide compiler checks that would allow user to see the problem before the exact conditions occur at runtime.

I won't argue with you there.

You could check cargo-fuzz trophy case, which is a list of issues that have been found via fuzzing.

I've added it to the trophy case.

That said, what's present in what quantities under what circumstances in the Rust fuzzing trophy case does a pretty good job of illustrating how effective the Rust compiler is at ruling out entire classes of bugs.

The same fuzzing techniques applied to Rust yielded a lot of bugs as well. But in Rust's case only 7 out of 340 fuzzer-discovered bugs, or 2%, were memory corruption issues. Naturally, all of the memory corruption bugs were in unsafe code.

https://github.com/rust-fuzz/trophy-case has like 70 of my issues in it, including the nine minidump bugs

If you have found any bugs with this tool, perhaps add them to the Rust fuzz trophy case?

Source: https://github.com/rust-fuzz/trophy-case (over 40 of those are just from me).

But to bring some data, check out the fuzz trophy case. It shows that failures in Rust are most often assertions/panics (equivalent to C++ exception) with memory corruption being relatively rare (it's not never—Rust isn't promising magic—but it's a significant change).

You need to read the list more carefully.

• The list is not for Rust itself, but every program every written in Rust. By itself it doesn't mean much, unless you compare prevalence of issues among Rust programs to prevalence of issues among C programs. For some context, see how memory unsafety is rare compared to assertions and uncaught exceptions: https://github.com/rust-fuzz/trophy-case

• Many of the memory-unsafety issues are on the C FFI boundary, which is unsafe due to C lacking expressiveness about memory ownership of its APIs (i.e. it shows how dangerous is to program where you don't have the Rust borrow checker checking your code).

• Many bugs about missing Send/Sync or evil trait implementations are about type-system loopholes that prevented compiler from catching code that was already buggy. C doesn't have these guarantees in the first place, so lack of them is not a CVE for C, but just how C is designed.