JakeHillion/dissertation-4-dissertation
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases 1 Wiki Activity

Update on Overleaf.

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
md403 2021-05-14 10:18:59 +00:00 committed by overleaf
parent a166eb474c
commit f5e45e6feb
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
2_Preparation/preparation.tex
View File

@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ The negatives of using C++ are demonstrated in the sample script, given in Figur
Rust is memory safe and thread safe, solving the latter issues with C++. Rust also has a minimal runtime, allowing for an execution speed comparable to C or C++. The Rust sample is given in Figure \ref{fig:rust-tun-sample}, and is pleasantly concise. Rust is memory safe and thread safe, solving the latter issues with C++. Rust also has a minimal runtime, allowing for an execution speed comparable to C or C++. The Rust sample is given in Figure \ref{fig:rust-tun-sample}, and is pleasantly concise.
For the purposes of this project, Rust's youthfulness is a negative. This is two-faceted: Integrated Development Environment (IDE) support and crate stability (crates are the Rust mechanism for package management). Firstly, the IDE support for Rust in my IDEs of choice is provided via a plugin to IntelliJ, and is not as well supported as the other languages. Secondly, the crate available for TUN support (tun-tap\footnote{\url{https://docs.rs/tun-tap/}}) does not yet provide a stable Application Programming Interface (API), which was noticed during test program development of the test program. Between writing the program initially and re-testing when documenting it, the crate API had changed to the point where my script no longer type checked. Further, the old version had disappeared, and thus I was left with a program that didn't compile or function. Although I could write the API for TUN interaction myself, the safety benefits of Rust would be less pronounced, as the direct systems interaction requires \texttt{unsafe} code, which bypasses parts of the type-checker and borrow-checker, leading to an increased potential for bugs. For the purposes of this project, Rust's youthfulness is a negative. This is two-faceted: Integrated Development Environment (IDE) support and crate stability (crates are the Rust mechanism for package management). Firstly, the IDE support for Rust in my IDEs of choice is provided via a plugin to IntelliJ, and is not as well supported as the other languages. Secondly, the crate available for TUN support (tun-tap\footnote{\url{https://docs.rs/tun-tap/}}) does not yet provide a stable Application Programming Interface (API), which was noticed during test program development. Between writing the program initially and re-testing when documenting it, the crate API had changed to the point where my script no longer type checked. Further, the old version had disappeared, and thus I was left with a program that didn't compile or function. Although I could write the API for TUN interaction myself, the safety benefits of Rust would be less pronounced, as the direct systems interaction requires \texttt{unsafe} code, which bypasses parts of the type-checker and borrow-checker, leading to an increased potential for bugs.
\subsubsection{Go} \subsubsection{Go}