totally-safe-transmute VS TinyGo

For example, there is this (pure safe Rust) code: https://github.com/ben0x539/totally-safe-transmute/blob/main... which accesses external resources (/proc/self/mem) in order to violate the safety guarantees.

The first is the totally_safe_transmute crate. I mean, who wouldn't love library code that has .expect("welp") and .expect("oof") as its error handling? But that's not even the really scary part. Issue #2 ("i hate this") remains open to this day, but for obvious reasons there's no chance of resolution. This post has some context and a line-by-line explanation of how it works.

You mean like this?

You can also do that in rust on linux: https://github.com/ben0x539/totally-safe-transmute/blob/master/src/lib.rs

I want to correct this statement: Rust can be safer, but not if a library you use contains unsound code. Unsoundness is most often caused by unsafe code, but not always (totally_safe_transmute, anyone?). There is a misconception that unsafe code blocks are always unsound and should be avoided at all costs, but they're completely fine if the safety contracts are upheld. In fact, unsafe blocks isolate the potential issues to make it easier to identify where undefined behavior may be occurring. unsafe code blocks are a feature of the language, and their usage should not be viewed as opting out of any safety the language provides, imo.

Just reimplement totally_safe_transmute in Zig. No need for unsafe.

Why transmute() when you can totally_safe_transmute()?

Well, there is always the totally-safe-transmute.

They should use https://github.com/ben0x539/totally-safe-transmute

Reading through the documentation, you will understand why this plugin is called "tiny," i.e., the SDK uses the TinyGo compiler instead of the official Go compiler. You can read more about why this is the case on the SDK\'s overview page, but the TLDR version is that the Go compiler can only produce Wasm binaries that run in the browser.

Not only you can fit Go into a kernel, there is at least two products that do so.

TamaGo, used to write the firmware used in USB armory.

https://www.withsecure.com/en/solutions/innovative-security-...

TinyGo, which even has official Arduino and ARM support, and is sponsored by Google

https://tinygo.org/

Ah but that isn't proper Go! Well neither is the C code that is allowed to be used in typical kernel code, almost nothing from ISO C standard library is available, and usually plenty of compiler specific language extensions are used instead.

Reminds me of https://tinygo.org/ - a project that brings Golang to embedded devices, browser (wasm) contexts. Do you converge or diverge from that project?

You should also consider TinyGo. It can compile Go for the Pico, and is starting to get good device support.

Thankfully some folks completly ignored whatever the rest of the world thinks system programming is all about and created:

- TinyGo (https://tinygo.org/), which is acknowledged by people in the industry[0][1]

- TamaGo unikernel on USB Armory secure key (https://www.withsecure.com/de/solutions/innovative-security-...)

And then there is the question if writing compilers, assemblers, linkers is systems programming or not.

[0]-https://www.cnx-software.com/2019/08/28/tinygo-go-compiler-f...

[1]-https://twitter.com/ArmSoftwareDev/status/131680481331796787...

Have you seen TinyGo? In the case of embedded system I would probably still chose C over Rust if the system didn't support dynamic memory allocation, and most embedded systems do not.

>I really hate how for microcontrollers the only two choices are either C++ or Micropython

There's TinyGo as well. https://tinygo.org/