> There's no reason to use [panics] as the language provides lots of safer alternatives.
Dunno ... I think runtime assertions and the ability to crash a misbehaving program are a pretty important part of the toolset. If rust required `Result`s to be wired up up and down the entire call tree for the privilege of using a runtime assertion, I think it would be a lot less popular, and probably less safe in practice.
> Alternatively, and perhaps even better, Rust needs a way to mark functions that can panic for any reason other than malloc failures.
I 100% agree that a mechanism to prove that code can or cannot panic would be great, but why would malloc be special here? Folks who are serious about preventing panics will generally use `no-std` in order to prevent malloc in the first place.
> a mechanism to prove that code can or cannot panic would be great
As appealing as the idea of a #[cfg(nopanic)] enforcement mechanism is, I think linting for panic() is the optimum, actually.
With a more rigidly enforced nopanic guarantee, I worry that some code and coders would start to rely on it (informally, accidentally, or out of ignorance) as a guarantee of completion, not return behavior. And that’s bad; adding language features which can easily be misconstrued to obscure the fact that all programs can terminate at any time is dangerous.
Lints, on the other hand, can be loud and enforced (and tools to recursively lint source-available dependencies exist), but few people mistake them for runtime behavior enforcement.
> I 100% agree that a mechanism to prove that code can or cannot panic would be great, but why would malloc be special here? Folks who are serious about preventing panics will generally use `no-std` in order to prevent malloc in the first place.
In one of the domains I work in, a malloc failure and OOMkill are equivalent. We just restart the container. I've done all the memory pressure measurement ahead of time and reasonably understand how the system will behave under load. Ideally it should never happen because we pay attention to this and provision with lots of overhead capacity, failover, etc. We have slow spillover rather than instantaneous catastrophe. Then there's instrumentation, metrics, and alerting.
A surprise bug in my code or a dependency that causes an unexpected panic might cause my application or cluster to restart in ways we cannot predict or monitor. And it can happen across hundreds of application instances all at once. There won't be advanced notice, and we won't have a smoking gun. We might waste hours looking for it. It could be as simple as ingesting a pubsub message and calling unwrap(). Imagine an critical service layer doing this all at once, which in turn kills downstream services, thundering herds of flailing services, etc. - now your entire company is on fire, everyone is being paged, and folks are just trying to make sense of it.
The fact is that the type of bugs that might trigger a user-induced panic might be hidden for a long time and then strike immediately with millions of dollars of consequences.
Maybe the team you implemented an RPC for six months ago changes their message protocol by flipping a flag. Or maybe you start publishing keys with encoded data center affinity bytes, but the schema changed, and the library that is supposed to handle routing did an unwrap() against a topology it doesn't understand - oops! Maybe the new version handles it, but you have older versions deployed that won't handle it gracefully.
These failures tend to sneak up on you, then happen all at once, across the entire service, leaving you with no redundancy. If you ingest a message that causes every instance to death spiral, you're screwed. Then you've got to hope your logging can help you find it quickly. And maybe it's not a simple roll back to resolve. And we know how long Rust takes to build...
The best tool for this surely can't be just a lint? In a supposedly "safe" language? And with no way to screen dependencies?
Just because somebody's use case for Rust is okay with this behavior doesn't mean everyone's tolerates this. Distributed systems folks would greatly appreciate some control over this.
All I'm asking for is tools to help us minimize the surface area for panics. We need as much control over this as we can get.
If you replace panic with a bespoke fallback or retry, have you really gained anything? You can still have all your services die at the same time, and you'll have even less of a smoking gun since you won't have a thousand stack traces pointing at the same line.
The core issue is that resilience to errors is hard, and you can't avoid that via choice of panic versus non-panic equivalents.
Dunno ... I think runtime assertions and the ability to crash a misbehaving program are a pretty important part of the toolset. If rust required `Result`s to be wired up up and down the entire call tree for the privilege of using a runtime assertion, I think it would be a lot less popular, and probably less safe in practice.
> Alternatively, and perhaps even better, Rust needs a way to mark functions that can panic for any reason other than malloc failures.
I 100% agree that a mechanism to prove that code can or cannot panic would be great, but why would malloc be special here? Folks who are serious about preventing panics will generally use `no-std` in order to prevent malloc in the first place.