Modern languages might do more than C to prevent programmers from writing buggy code, but if you already have bug-free code due to massive time, attention, and testing, and the rate of change is low (or zero), it doesn’t really matter what the language is. SQLIte could be assembly language for all it would matter.
This jives with a point that the Google Security Blog made last year: "The [memory safety] problem is overwhelmingly with new code...Code matures and gets safer with time."
https://security.googleblog.com/2024/09/eliminating-memory-s...
https://www.sqlite.org/cves.html
Note that although code matures the chances of C Human error bugs will never go to zero. We have some bad incidents like Heartbleed to show this.
Too few maintainers, too few security researchers and too little funding.
When writing systems as complicated and as sensitive as the leading encryption suite used globally, no language choice will save you from under resourcing.
Safe code is just code that cannot have Undefined Behavior. C and C++ have the concept of "soundness" just like Rust, just no way to statically guard against it.
Which is all kind of to say, all of Rust's different safety rules end up being surprisingly densely interconnected. It's really hard to guarantee one of them (say "no use-after-free") without ultimately requiring all of them ("no uninitialized variables", "no mutable aliasing", etc).
The technical reason is that Rust-the-language gives the compiler much more information to work with, and it doesn’t look like it is possible to add this information to the C or C++ languages.
Instead what I see _mostly_ is re-writes and proposed re-writes of existing software, often software that has no networking functions, and/or relatively small, easily audited software that IMHO poses little risk of memory-related bugs
This is concerning to me as an end-user who builds their software from source because the effects on compilation, e.g., increased resource requirements, increased interdependencies, increased program size, decreased compilation speed, are significant
Public domain. No "copyleft" license needed
Being written in a small, fast, "old and boring" language may be part of what makes SQLite apealing. Another (related) part may be the thoughtfulness and carefulness of its author, e.g., "time, attention and testing"
The former, i.e., the author's "time, attention and testing", may matter more than the later, i.e., the author's language choice
As suggested by the top comment, in effect the author's language choice, by itself, may not matter with respect to the issue of "safety". If true, then even an "unsafe language" may not reduce the "safety" of SQLite^1
djb's software is also public domain and written in an "unsafe language", mostly the same "old and boring" one as used to write SQLite. Like SQLite it is appealing to many people and is found in many places^2
1. But the thoughtlessness and carelessness of an author, no matter what language they choose, is still relevant to "safety". In sum, "safety" is partly a function of human effort, e.g., "time, attention and testing", not simply the result of a language choice. Perhaps "safe" and "unsafe" are adjectives that can apply to authors as well as languages
That is, nobody perceives, say, "the silver searcher" as being some sort of nefarious plot to re-write grep, but they did with ripgrep, even though that's not what it is trying to do.
There are a few projects that are deliberately doing a re-write for reasons they consider important, but they're not "just because it's in Rust," they're things like "openssl has had memory safety issues, we should use tools that eliminate those" or "sudo is very important and has grown a lot of features and has had memory safety issues, we should consider cutting some scope and using tools that help eliminate the memory safety issues." But those number of projects are very small. Heck, even things like uutils were originally "I just want to learn Rust" projects and not some sort of "we must re-write the world in Rust."
I have a suspicion as to why this perception exists in the C++ crowd.
I don't think it's because of evangelists. C++ was that evangelized language in the early 90's, but after a period in the sun it then survived the evangelism of Java, Python, Go, and others, despite losing ground to them in general purpose tasks.
And that's because all of those other languages, while being much safer than C++, came at the cost of performance or the overhead of a runtime. There was really no other language that had the expressiveness of C++ while allowing the developer to get down to the bare metal if they needed speed.
The existence and growing popularity of Rust changes that calculus, and I imagine that makes certain developers who might have a lot of investment in the C++ ecosystem defensive, causing them to overreact to any perceived slight in a way that other languages simply don't provoke.
Designing new software is orders of magnitude more difficult than iterating on existing software
Who actually is nagging people multiple times per day to do free labor for them and rewrite a project in a completely different programming language?
Few things in this life are novel. Regardless, when I wrote ripgrep, I was focusing on writing new and better software. I perceived several problems with similar tools at the time and set out to do something better.
Imagine if people actually listened to whinging like your comment. I'm glad I never have.
We will see. On the Rust side there is Turso which is pretty active.
It's an open sourced project! It's public domain!
If you make an open source project that is heavily used and widely lauded for a quarter century before being supplanted by a newer solution that's better, do you know what that is?
A success! You did it! You made a thing that was useful and loved!
Nothing lasts forever; there's nothing wrong with a project filling a niche and then gracefully fading away when that niche goes away.
You may think these are ludicrous prices, but think of it as market segmentation. It seems like they're only a few employees, so if they get, like, 300 companies in the entire world to sign up for email support, they earn a pretty respectable salary. Or if they get, like, four companies in the whole world to join their consortium, and nobody else buys anything. In fact, there are four consortium members on the homepage: https://sqlite.org/index.html and possibly others who chose not to be listed. So we have (it seems) two people getting paid $600k per year to work on this. This is a software SMB - they're not trying to hyperscale or squeeze every penny, just make a living selling a good product at a steady rate.
This model only works, of course, because SQLite is a genuinely good product that everyone loves and uses for free in every open-source project. It wouldn't work if a copy of SQLite cost even $10, because then we'd all be using MariaDB. It might not even work if it was proprietary but free.
Turso is arguably positioned slightly better as a standalone product seeing as it's using a more traditional open source "bazaar" model, as opposed to SQLite's source available "cathedral" model.
So SQLite is still the bar
I guess we could use Rust and I might be wrong on this, but it seemed like it would be a lot of work to utilize it compared to just continuing with C and gradually incorprating Zig, and we certainly don't write bug free C.
I don’t get that. You had trouble optimizing Go, so you went with Python?
I personally really like Go, but I feel like I now have a better understanding of why so many teams stick with c/c++ without even considering adopting Go, Rust or similar.
Memory bugs are often implicated in security issues, but other bugs are more likely to cause data loss, corruption, etc.
Not only was Apple was able to launch the Mac Classic with zero lines of C code, their Pascal dialect lives on in Delphi and Free Pascal.
As one example.
Non exaustive list:
- proper strings with bounds checking
- proper arrays with bounds checking
- no pointer decays, you need to be explicit about getting pointers to arrays
- less use cases of implicit conversions, requires more typecasts
- reference parameters reduce the need of pointers
- variant records directly support tags
- enumerations are stronger typed without implicit conversions
- modules with better control what gets exposed
- range types
- set types
- arenas
There was plenty of Pascal code on Mac OS including a Smalltalk like OOP framework, until C++ took over Object Pascal's role at Apple, which again it isn't C.
I love the "but it has used Assembly!" usual rebutal, as if OSes written in C weren't full of Assembly, or inline Assembly and language extensions that certainly aren't C (ISO C proper) either.
If you prefer, Zig is a modern taken on what Modula-2 in 1978, and Object Pascal in the 1980's already offered, with the addition of nullable types and comptime as key differentor in 40 years, packaged in a more appealing syntax for current generations.
Also if we ignore the historical tellings from Apple employees at the time, in places like the Folklore book and CHM interviews.
Can you elaborate on these historical tellings? From what I found on folklore.org, Lisa OS had a bunch of Pascal, and the Mac system borrowed a bunch of Lisa code, but it was all hand-translated to assembly in the process.
> When Apple began development of the Macintosh (1982) Apple used Lisa Pascal and the Lisa Workshop for system software development.
> Object Pascal for the Macintosh was developed by Apple starting in 1985 to support more rapid and more standardized development of Macintosh programs. Available for only MPW, Object Pascal is a descendant of the Lisa Clascal compiler.
> The key Apple player behind Object Pascal was Larry Tesler who recruited the help of Niklaus Wirth, the creator of Pascal, to clean up the syntax of Clascal. Object Pascal was used to develop the extensive MacApp class library. This library was fully documented by Apple via several books and the source code for MacApp was provided to developers.
https://www.folklore.org/3rd_Party_Developers_and_Macintosh_...
> Macintosh development in the early days (circa 1983-1985) was done using the Apple Lisa computer and its Lisa Workshop development environment. I originally used a Lisa 2/5 model which contained 1M byte of RAM, an internal 400K 3.5" Sony floppy drive, and an external 5M byte ProFile hard drive (yes, 5M as in mega bytes was considered a rather large drive in those days). I later used a Lisa 2/10 model which had an additional 10M byte internal Widget hard drive which gave me a total of 15M bytes of hard drive storage.
> The Lisa Pascal language was very powerful and compiled Pascal source files to Motorola 68000 object code files. I never found a need to use the Workshop's 68000 assembler since everything I needed for my application could be written in the higher level Lisa Pascal language. Macintosh application resource information was created as text files which were then compiled to a binary format using the RMaker resource compiler. Transferring a Macintosh object program from the Lisa to the Macintosh required the Lisa utility program MacCom which copied Lisa files to a Macintosh formatted disk in the Lisa's 400K internal disk drive. MacCom combined separate Lisa data and resource fork files which were stored on the Lisa's hard drive and stored them as single documents on the Macintosh floppy.
> Macintosh programming was based on a collection of programming libraries called "units" in Pascal parlance. These resided on the Lisa and implemented the Macintosh application programming interface (API) called the Toolbox and Operating System by Apple. These libraries came on Lisa formatted disks called the Lisa Macintosh Supplement. I recall receiving around 3 or 4 supplements each with around a half dozen disks with these libraries. These disks also contained Macintosh utility and sample applications such as the Uriah Heap desk accessory by Andy Hertzfeld (called desk ornaments in the early days), the Edit text editor, and the File application by Cary Clark which showed detailed examples of Macintosh programming.
Nothing you’ve quoted says otherwise. The closest is the very first sentence, but all it says is that Pascal was in use at Apple when the Macintosh project began, not that it was used for that project.
https://bitsavers.org/pdf/apple/mac/Inside_Macintosh_Vol_1_1...
I'm happy to change my view given evidence, but you have yet to provide a single word of evidence that there was any Pascal in the original Macintosh system.
[Cries in Ada]
The output is a non-portable half-a-million LoC Go file for each platform.
This is the C/++ delusion - "if one puts enough effort, a [complex] memory unsafe program can be made memory safe"; the year after this page was published, the Magellan series of RCEs was released.
Keeping SQLite in C is certainly a valid design choice, but it's important to be aware of the practical implications of the language.
We don't have to have one implementation of a lightweight SQL database. You can go out right now and start your own implementation in Rust or C++ or Go or Lisp or whatever you like! You can even make compatible APIs for it so that it can be a drop-in replacement for SQLite! No one can stop you! You don't need permission!
But why would we want to throw away the perfectly good C implementation, and why would we expect the C experts who have been carefully maintaining SQLite for a quarter century to be the ones to learn a new language and start over?
Because a lot of language advocacy has degraded to telling others what you want them to do instead of showing by example what to do. The idea behind this is that language adoption is some kind of zero sum game. If you're developing project 'x' in language 'y' then you are by definition not developing it in language 'z'. This reduces the stature of language 'z' and the continued existence of project 'x' in spite of not being written in language 'z' makes people wonder if language 'z' is actually as much of a necessity as its proponents claim. And never mind the fact that if the decision in what language 'x' would be written were to be revisited by the authors of 'x' that not only language 'z' would be on the menu, but also languages 'd', 'l', 'j' and 'g'.
Company I worked for decided to build out a new microservice in language Y. The whole company was writing in W and X, but they decided to write the new service in Y. When something goes wrong, or a bug needs fixing, 3 people in the company of over 100 devs know Y. Guess what management is doing.. Re-writing it in X.
But think about all those karma points here and on Reddit, or GitHub stars!
I agree to what I think you're saying which is that "sqlite" has, to some degree, become so ubiquitous that it's evolved beyond a single implementation.
We, of course, have sqlite the C library but there is also sqlite the database file format and there is no reason we can't have an sqlite implementation in golang (we already do) and one in pure rust too.
I imagine that in the future that will happen (pure rust implementation) and that perhaps at some point much further in the future, that may even become the dominant implementation.
There's also the Go-wrapped WASM build of the C sqlite[0] which is handy.
The SQLite developers are actually open to the idea of rewriting SQLite in Rust, so they must see an advantage to it:
> All that said, it is possible that SQLite might one day be recoded in Rust. Recoding SQLite in Go is unlikely since Go hates assert(). But Rust is a possibility. Some preconditions that must occur before SQLite is recoded in Rust include: […] If you are a "rustacean" and feel that Rust already meets the preconditions listed above, and that SQLite should be recoded in Rust, then you are welcomed and encouraged to contact the SQLite developers privately and argue your case.
I think we like to fool ourselves that decisions like these are based on performance considerations or maintainability or whatever, but in reality they would be based on time to market and skill availability in the areas where the team is being built.
At the end of the day, SQLite is not being rewritten because the cost of doing so is not justifiable
Huh it's not everyday that I hear a genuinely new argument. Thanks for sharing.
This feels like chasing arbitrary 100% test coverage at the expense of safety. The code quality isn’t actually improved by omitting the checks even though it makes testing coverage go up.
I don't think I would (personally) ever be comfortable asserting that a code branch in the machine instructions emitted by a compiler can't ever be taken, no matter what, with 100% confidence, during a large fraction of situations in realistic application or library development, as to do so would require a type system powerful enough to express such an invariant, and in that case, surely the compiler would not emit the branch code in the first place.
One exception might be the presence of some external formal verification scheme which certifies that the branch code can't ever be executed, which is presumably what the article authors are gesturing towards in item D on their list of preconditions.
The choices therefore are:
1. No bound check
2. Bounds check inserted, but that branch isn't covered by tests
3. Bounds check inserted, and that branch is covered by tests
I'm skeptical of the claim that if (3) is infeasible then the next best option is (1)
Because if it is indeed an impossible scenario, then the lack of coverage shouldn't matter. If it's not an impossible scenario then you have an untested case with option (1) - you've overrun the bounds of an array, which may not be a branch in the code but is definitely a different behaviour than the one you tested.
At the point where a load-bearing piece of your quality assurance strategy is 100% branch coverage of the generated machine code, it very much does matter.
> I'm skeptical of the claim that if (3) is infeasible then the next best option is (1)
In the general case, obviously not. But, in the specific case we’re discussing, which is that (2) has the rider of “the development team will be forced to abandon a heretofore important facet of their testing strategy at the exact moment they are rewriting the entire codebase in a language they are guaranteed to have less expertise in,” I think (1) seems pretty defensible.
"Airbus confirms that SQLite is being used in the flight software for the A350 XWB family of aircraft."
Next they’ll have to tell me about how they had to turn off inlining because it creates copies of code which adds some dead branches. Bounds checks are just normal inlined code. Any bounds checked language worth its salt has that coverage for all that stuff already.
“What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.” — Mark Twain, https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/738123
If you then can come up a scenario where you need it. Well in fully tested code you do need to test it.
// pseudocode
if (i >= array_length) panic("index out of bounds")
Someone please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the argument.
Automatic array bounds checks can get hit by corrupted data. Thereby leading to a crash of exactly the kind that SQLite tries to avoid. With complete branch testing, they can guarantee that the test suite includes every kind of corruption that might hit an array bounds check, and guarantee that none of them panic. But if the compiler is inserting branches that are supposed to be inaccessible, you can't do complete branch testing. So now how do you know that you have tested every code branch that might be reached from corrupted data?
Furthermore those unused branches are there as footguns which are reachable with a cosmic ray bit flip, or a dodgy CPU. Which again undermines the principle of keeping running if at all possible.
Also you rarely need to actually access by index - you could just access using functional methods on .iter() which avoids the bounds check problem in the first place.
I'm checking to see how array access is implemented, whether through deref to slice, or otherwise.
The use case that SQLite has chosen to optimize for is critical embedded software. As described in https://www.sqlite.org/qmplan.html, the standard that they base their efforts on is a certification for use in aircraft. If mission critical software on a plane is allowed to crash, this can render the controls inoperable. Which is likely to lead to a very literal crash some time later.
The result is software that has been optimized to do the right thing if at all possible, and to degrade gracefully if that is not possible.
Note that the open source version of SQLite is not certified for use in aviation. But there are versions out there that have been certified. (The difference is a ton of extra documentation.) And in fact SQLite is in use by Airbus. Though the details of what exactly for are not, as far as I know, public.
If this documented behavior is not what you want for your use case, then you should consider using another database. Though, honestly, no other database comes remotely close when it comes to software quality. And therefore I doubt that "degrade as documented rather than crash" is a good reason to avoid SQLite. (There are lots of other potential reasons for choosing another database.)
I fully recognize that political definitions drive purchases, so it's meaningful to a project either way. but that doesn't make it a valid technical argument.
But the choice is not just political. There are very meaningful technical differences for code that potentially winds up embedded in other software, and could be inside of literal embedded software.
The first is memory. It takes memory to run whatever is responsible for detecting the crash, relaunching, and starting up a supervisor. This memory is not free. Which is one of the reasons why Erlang requires at a minimum 10 MB or so of memory. By contrast the overhead of SQLite is something like half a MB. This difference is very significant for people putting software into medical devices, automotive controllers, and so on. All of which are places where SQLite is found, but Erlang isn't.
The second is concurrency. Erlang's concurrency model leaks - you can't embed it in software without having to find a way to fit Erlang concurrency in. This isn't a problem if Erlang already is in your software stack. But that's an architectural constraint that would be a problem in many of the contexts that SQLite is actually used in.
Remember, SQLite is not optimized for your use case. It is optimized for embedded software that needs to try to keep running when things go wrong. It just happens to be so good that it is useful for you.
If it can avoid crashing, other functionality may continue to work fine.
This is a dubious statement. In Rust, the array indexing operator arr[i] is syntactic sugar for calling the function arr.index(i), and the implementation of this function on the standard library's array types is documented to perform a bounds-check assertion and access the element.
So the checks aren't really implicitly added -- you explicitly called a function that performs a bounds check. If you want different behavior, you can call a different, slightly-less-ergonomic indexing function, such as `get` (which returns an Option, making your code responsible for handling the failure case) or `get_unchecked` (which requires an unsafe block and exhibits UB if the index is out of bounds, like C).
The way I was thinking about it was: if you somehow magically knew that nothing added by the compiler could ever cause a problem, it would be redundant to test those branches. Then wondering why a really well tested compiler wouldn't be equivalent to that. It sounds like the answer is, for the level of soundness sqlite is aspiring to, you can't make those assumptions.
If the check never fails, it is logically equivalent to not having the check. If the code isn't "correct" and the panic is reached, then the equivalent c code would have undefined behavior, which can be much worse than a panic.
Your second case implies that it is reachable.
If you have the second case, I would much rather have a panic than undefined behavior. As mentioned in another comment, in c indexing an array is semantically equivalent to:
if (i < len(arr)) arr[i] else UB()
I wouldn't put it that way. Usually when we say the compiler is "incorrect", we mean that it's generating code that breaks the observable behavior of some program. In that sense, adding extra checks that can't actually fail isn't a correctness issue; it's just an efficiency issue. I'd usually say the compiler is being "conservative" or "defensive". However, the "100% branch testing" strategy that we're talking about makes this more complicated, because this branch-that's-never-taken actually is observable, not to the program itself but to its test suite.
sure safety checks are added but
it's ignoring that many of such checks get reliably optimized away
worse it's a bit like saying "in case of a broken invariant I prefer arbitrary potential highly problematic behavior over clean aborts (or errors) because my test tooling is inadequate"
instead of saying "we haven't found adequate test tooling" for our use case
Why inadequate? Because technically test setups can use
1. fault injection to test such branches even if normally you would never hit them
2. for many of such tests (especially array bound checks) you can pretty reliably identify them and then remove them from your test coverage statistic
idk. what the tooling of rust wrt this is in 2025, but around the rust 1.0 times you mainly had C tooling you applied to rust so you had problems like that back then.
#ifdef CONTRACTS
if (i >= array_length) panic("index out of bounds")
#endifRust does not stop you from writing code that accesses out of bounds, at all. It just makes sure that there's an if that checks.
By the same logic one could also claim that tail recursion optimisation, or loop unrolling are also dangerous because they change the way code works, and your tests don't cover the final output.
I don’t think anyone would find the idea compelling that “you are only responsible for the code you write, not the code that actually runs” if the code that actually runs causes unexpected invalid behavior on millions of mobile devices.
Google already ships binaries compiled with Rust in Android. They are actually system services which are more critical than SQLite storage of apps.
Moreover Rust version of SQLite can ship binaries compiled with a qualified compiler like Ferrocene: https://ferrocene.dev/en/ (which is the downstream, qualified version of standard Rust compiler rustc). In qualification process the compiler is actually checked whether it generates reasonable machine code against a strict set of functional requirements.
Most people don't compile SQLite with qualified versions of GCC either. So this exact argument actually can be turned against them.
Hipp worked as a military contractor for battleships, furthermore years later SQLite was under contract under every proto-smartphone company in the USA. Under these constraints you maybe are not responsible to test what the compiler spits out across platforms and different compilers, but doing that makes the project a lot more reliable, makes it sexier for embedded and weapons.
If sqlite were to read one byte over the end of an array, it's unlikely to lose your data. Rust would guarantee that to lose data.
Some languages I was aware of are defined so that if what you wrote could be a tail call it is. However you might write code you thought was a tail call and you were wrong - in such languages it only blows up when it recurses too deep and runs out of stack. AIUI the Rust feature would reject this code.
That's a bizarre claim. The source code isn't the product, and the product is what has to work. If a compiler or OS bug causes your product to function incorrectly, it's still your problem. The solution is to either work around the bug or get the bug fixed, not just say "I didn't write the bug, so deal with it."
There is a difference between "gcc 4.8 is buggy, let's not use it" and "let's write unit tests for gcc". If you are suspicious about gcc, you should submit your patches to gcc, not vendor them in your own repo.
Are you asking whether I write integration tests? Yes, I do. And at work there's a whole lot of acceptance testing too.
>There is a difference between "gcc 4.8 is buggy, let's not use it" and "let's write unit tests for gcc".
They're not proposing writing unit tests for gcc, only actually testing what gcc produces from their source. You know, by executing it like tests tend to do. Testing only the first party source would mean relying entirely on static source code analysis instead.
Exactly. You don't need unit tests for the binary output. You want to test whether the executable behaves as expected. Therefore "rust adds extra conditional branches that are never entered, and we can't test those branches" argument is not valid.
This is not correct for every industry.
Certainly don't get me wrong, SQLite is one of the best and most thoroughly tested libraries out there. But this was an argument to have 4 arguments. That's because 2 of the arguments break down as "Those languages didn't exist when we first wrote SQLite and we aren't going to rewrite the whole library just because a new language came around."
Any language, including C, will emit or not emit instructions that are "invisible" to the author. For example, whenever the C compiler decides it can autovectorize a section of a function it'll be introducing a complicated set of SIMD instructions and new invisible branch tests. That can also happen if the C compiler decides to unroll a loop for whatever reason.
The entire point of compilers and their optimizations is to emit instructions which keep the semantic intent of higher level code. That includes excluding branches, adding new branches, or creating complex lookup tables if the compiler believes it'll make things faster.
Dr Hipp is completely correct in rejecting Rust for SQLite. Sqlite is already written and extremely well tested. Switching over to a new language now would almost certainly introduce new bugs that don't currently exist as it'd inevitably need to be changed to remain "safe".
Presumably this is why they do 100% test coverage. All of those instructions would be tested and not invisible to the test suite
A new compiler, new flags, a new version. These all can create new invisible untested branches.
Dr. Hipp's position is paraphrased as, “I cannot trust the compilers, so I test the binaries; the source code may have UBs or run into compiler bugs, but I know the binaries I distribute are correct because they were thoroughly tested" at https://blog.regehr.org/archives/1292. There, Dr. John Regehr, a researcher in undefined behavior, found some undefined behavior in the SQLite source code, which kicked off a discussion of the implications of UB given 100% MC/DC coverage of the binaries of every supported platform.
(I suppose the argument at this point is, "Users may use a new compiler, flag, or version that creates untested code, but that's not nearly as bad as _all_ releases and platforms containing untested code.")
no, you still need to rewrite, re-optimize, etc. everything
it would make it much easier to be fully compatible, sure, but that doesn't make it trivial
furthermore part of it's (mostly internal) design are strongly influenced by C specific dev-UX aspects, so you wouldn't write them the same, so test for them (instead of integration tests) may not apply
which in general also means that you most likely would break some special purpose/usual user which do have "brittle" (not guaranteed) assumptions about SQLite
if you have code which very little if at all changes and has no major issues, don't rewrite it
but most of the new "external" things written around SQLite, alternative VFS impl. etc. tend to be at most partially written in C
It is.
> then switching to rust would be trivial
So prove it. Hint: it's not trivial.
0: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/vec/struct.Vec.html#method.get...
There already is an implicit "branch" on every array access in C, it's called an access violation.
Do they test for a segfault on every single array access in the code base? No? Then they don't really have 100% branch coverage, do they?
I think a lot of projects that claim to have 100% coverage are overselling their testing, but SQLite is in another category of thoroughness entirely.
A simple array access in C:
arr[i] = 123;
if (i >= array_length) UB();
else arr[i] = 123;
if (i >= array_length) panic();
else arr[i] = 123;
Dr. Hipp mentions that "Recoding SQLite in Go is unlikely since Go hates assert()", implying that SQLite makes use of assert statements to guard against unreachable conditions. Surely his testing infrastructure must have some way of exempting unreachable assert branches -- so why can't bounds checks (that do nothing but assert undefined behavior does not occur) be treated in the same way?
A more complex C program can have index range checking at a different place than the simple array access. The compiler's flow analysis isn't always able to confirm that the index is guaranteed to be checked. If it therefore adds a cautionary (and unneeded) range check, then this code branch can never be exercised, making the code no longer 100% branch tested.
you basically say if deeply unexpected things happen you prefer you program doing widely arbitrary and as such potentially dangerous things over it having a clean abort or proper error. ... that doesn't seem right
worse it's due to a lack of the used tooling and not a fundamental problem, not only can you test this branches (using fault injection) you also often (not always) can separate them from relevant branches when collecting the branch statistics
so the while argument misses the point (which is tooling is lacking, not extra checks for array bounds and similar)
lastly array bounds checking is probably the worst example they could have given as it
- often can be disabled/omitted in optimized builds
- is quite often optimized away
- has often quite low perf. overhead
- bound check branches are often very easy to identify, i.e. excluding them from a 100% branch testing statistic is viable
- out of bounds read/write are some of the most common cases of memory unsafety leading to security vulnerability (including full RCE cases)
SQLite isn't a program, it's a library used by many other programs. As such, aborting is not an option. It doesn't do "wildly arbitrary" things - it reports errors to the client application and takes it on faith that they will respond appropriately.
It's like seat belts.
E.g. what if we drive four blocks and then the case occurs when the seatbelt is needed need the seatbelt? Okay, we have an explicit test for that.
But we cannot test everything. We have not tested what happens if we drive four blocks, and then take a right turn, and hit something half a block later.
Screw it, just remove the seatbelts and not have this insane untested space whereby we are never sure whether the seat belt will work properly and prevent injury!
- Rust needs to mature a little more, stop changing so fast, and move further toward being old and boring.
- Rust needs to demonstrate that it can be used to create general-purpose libraries that are callable from all other programming languages.
- Rust needs to demonstrate that it can produce object code that works on obscure embedded devices, including devices that lack an operating system.
- Rust needs to pick up the necessary tooling that enables one to do 100% branch coverage testing of the compiled binaries.
- Rust needs a mechanism to recover gracefully from OOM errors.
- Rust needs to demonstrate that it can do the kinds of work that C does in SQLite without a significant speed penalty.
2. This has been demonstrated.
3. This one hinges on your definition of “obscure,” but the “without an operating system” bit is unambiguously demonstrated.
4. I am not an expert here, but given that you’re testing binaries, I’m not sure what is Rust specific. I know the Ferrocene folks have done some of this work, but I don’t know the current state of things.
5. Rust as a language does no allocation. This OOM behavior is the standard library, of which you’re not using in these embedded cases anyway. There, you’re free to do whatever you’d like, as it’s all just library code.
6. This also hinges on a lot of definitions, so it could be argued either way.
ironically if we look at how things play out in practice rust is far more suited as general purpose languages then C, to a point where I would argue C is only a general purpose language on technicality not on practical IRL basis
this is especially ridiculous when they argue C is the fasted general purpose language when that has proven to simply not hold up to larger IRL projects (i.e. not micro benchmarks)
C has terrible UX for generic code re-use and memory management, this often means that in IRL projects people don't write the fasted code. Wrt. memory management it's not rare to see unnecessary clones, as not doing so it to easy to lead to bugs. Wrt. data structures you write the code which is maintainable, robust and fast enough and sometimes add the 10th maximal simple reimplementation (or C macro or similar) of some data structure instead of using reusing some data structures people spend years of fine tuning.
When people switched a lot from C to C++ most general purpose projects got faster, not slower. And even for the C++ to Rust case it's not rare that companies end up with faster projects after the switch.
Both C++ and Rust also allow more optimization in general.
So C is only fastest in micro benchmarks after excluding stuff like fortran for not being general purpose while itself not really being used much anymore for general purpose projects...
The official C99 standard document is typically about 210 pages.
Admittedly the 700 pages include the appendix and it is only a draft version, but still...
C projects avoiding dependencies entirely just end up reimplementing work. You can do that in any language.
Is hard work? But is not that different from what you see in certain C projects that neither use external deps
I don't put too many things in Cargo.toml and it still pulls like a hundred things
In C I've seen more half-baked json implementations than I can count on my fingers because using dependencies is too cumbersome in that ecosystem and people just write it themselves but most of the time with more bugs.
P. S.
I you don't account all the unsafe sections scattered everywhere in all those dependencies.
Rust insists on its own package manager "rustup" and frowns on distro maintainers. When Rust is happy to just be packaged by the distro and rustup has gone away, then it will have matured to at least adolescence.
There are other worlds out there than Linux.
the rust version packaged in distros is for compiling rust code shipped as part of the distro. This means it
- is normally not the newest version (which , to be clear, is not bad per see, but not necessary what you need)
- might not have all optional components (e.g. no clippy)
but if you idk. write a server deployed by you company
- you likely want all components
- you don't need to care what version the distro pinned
- you have little reason not to use the latest rust compiler
for other use cases you have other reasons, some need nightly rust, some want to test against beta releases, some want to be able to test against different rust versions etc. etc.
rustup exist (today) for the same reason why a lot of dev projects use project specific copies of all kinds of tooling and libraries which do not match whatever their distro ships: The distro use-case and generic dev-use case have diverging requirements! (Other examples nvm(node), flutter, java etc.).
Also some distros are notorious for shipping outdated software (debian "stable").
And not everything is Linux, rustup works on OSX.
Basically, people use it because they prefer it.
Rather, what makes it hard is the culture and surrounding ecosystem of pinned versions or the latest of everything. That's probably in part the fault of Rustup being recommended, I agree. But it's not nefarious.
The current version of the Rust compiler definitely doesn't -- there's known issues like https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/57893 -- but maybe there's some historical version from before the features that caused those problems were introduced.
Like, in the C world, there's a difference between "the C specification has problems" and "GCC incorrectly implements the C specification". You can make statements about what "the C language" does or doesn't guarantee independently of any specific implementation.
But "the Rust language" is not a specification. It's just a vague ideal of things the Rust team is hoping their compiler will be able to achieve. And so "the Rust language" gets marketed as e.g. having a type system that guarantees memory safety, when in fact no such type system has been designed -- the best we have is a compiler with a bunch of soundness holes. And even if there's some fundamental issue with how traits work that hasn't been resolved for six years, that can get brushed off as merely a compiler bug.
This propagates down into things like Rust's claims about backwards compatibility. Rust is only backwards-compatible if your programs are written in the vague-ideal "Rust language". The Rust compiler, the thing that actually exists in the real world, has made a lot of backwards-incompatible changes. But these are by definition just bugfixes, because there is no such thing as a design issue in "the Rust language", and so "the Rust language" can maintain its unbroken record of backwards-compatibility.
Is it getting brushed off as merely a compiler bug? At least if I'm thinking of the same bug as you [0] the discussion there seems to be more along the lines of the devs treating it as a "proper" language issue, not a compiler bug. At least as far as I can tell there hasn't been a resolution to the design issue, let alone any work towards implementing a fix in the compiler.
The soundness issue that I see more frequently get "brushed off as merely a compiler bug" is the lifetime variance one underpinning cve-rs [1], which IIRC the devs have long decided what the proper behavior should be but actually implementing said behavior is blocked behind some major compiler reworks.
> has made a lot of backwards-incompatible changes
Not sure I've seen much evidence for "a lot" of compatibility breaks outside of the edition system. Perhaps I'm just particularly (un)lucky?
> because there is no such thing as a design issue in "the Rust language"
I'm not sure any of the Rust devs would agree? Have any of them made a claim along those lines?
Yes, this thread contains an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45587209 . (I linked the same bug you did in the comment that that's a reply to.)
The Rust team may see this as a language design issue internally, and I'd be inclined to agree. Rust's outward-facing marketing does not reflect this view.
Ah, my apologies. Not sure exactly how I managed to miss that.
That being said, I guess I might have read that bit of your comment different than you had in mind; I was thinking of whether the Rust devs were dismissing language design issues as compiler bugs, not what third parties (albeit one with an unusually relevant history in this case) may think.
> Rust's outward-facing marketing does not reflect this view.
As above, perhaps I interpret the phrase "outward-facing marketing" differently than you do. I typically associate that (and "marketing" in general, in this context) with more official channels, whether that's official posts or posts by active devs in an official capacity.
Rust's marketing is pretty grassroots in general, but even current official sources like https://rust-lang.org/ say things like "Rust’s rich type system and ownership model guarantee memory-safety" that are only true of the vague-ideal "Rust language" and are not true of the type system they actually designed and implemented in the Rust compiler.
> but even current official sources like https://rust-lang.org/ say things like "Rust’s rich type system and ownership model guarantee memory-safety" that are only true of the vague-ideal "Rust language" and are not true of the type system they actually designed and implemented in the Rust compiler.
That's an understandable point, though I think something similar would arguably still apply even if Rust had a "proper" spec since a "proper" spec doesn't necessarily rule out underspecification/omissions/mistakes/etc, both in the spec and in the implementation. A "real" formal spec à la WebAssembly might solve that issue, but given the lack of time/resources for a "normal" spec at the time a "real" one would have been a pipe dream at best.
That being said, I think it's an interesting question as to what should be done if/when you discover an issue like the trait coherence one, whether you have a spec or not. "Aspirational" marketing doesn't exactly feel nice, but changing your marketing every time you discover/fix a bug also doesn't exactly feel nice for other reasons.
Bit of a fun fact - it appears that the particular trait coherence issue actually has existed in some form since Rust 1.0, and was only noticed a few years later when the issue was filed. Perhaps a proper specification effort would have caught it (especially since one of the devs said they had concerns when implementing a relevant check), but given it had taken that long to discover I wouldn't be too surprised if it would have been missed anyway.
I still ultimately think that the framing of Rust being any different than other languages here is actively trying to read the worst into things; Rust is working on having a spec, and formally proving things out. This takes a long time. But it's still ongoing. That doesn't mean Rust marketing relies on lying, I don't think most people even understand "soundness" at all, let alone assume that when Rust says "there's no UB in safe code" or similar that there's a promise of zero soundness bugs or open questions. That backwards incompatible changes are made in spite of breaking code at times to fix soundness issues is an acknowledgement of how sometimes there are in fact bugs, this doesn't change that for virtually all Rust users most of the time, updating the compiler is without fanfare, and so in practice, it is backwards compatible. I have heard of people struggling to update their C or C++ compilers to new standards, that doesn't mean that those languages are horribly backwards incompatible, just that there is a spectrum here, and being on one side of it as close as realistically possible doesn't mean that it's a lie.
But, regardless of all of that, it does appear that the issue you linked specifically may be not just a bug, but a real issue. That's my bad, and I'll try to remember that specific bug in the future.
That's part of the "interesting question" I referred to in my comment. There's probably multiple factors that go into the decision of what to put onto the front page, and the presence/absence of soundness issues is just one of those factors.
Of course, two libraries that choose different no_std collection types can't communicate...but hey, we're comparing to C here.
like there are some things you can well in C
and this things you can do in rust too, through with a bit of pain and limitations to how you write rust
and then there is the rest which looks "hard but doable" in C, but the more you learn about it the more it's a "uh wtf. nightmare" case where "let's kill+restart and have robustness even in presence of the process/error kernel dying" is nearly always the right answer.
I’d love to see rust be so stable that MSRV is an anachronism. I want it to be unthinkable you wouldn’t have any reason not to support Rust from forever ago because the feature set is so stable.
What other languages satisfy this criteria?
For example, a very popular library in the systems/embedded space, cjson, works with C89. FreeRTOS works with C99. This is a very common pattern in major libraries. It is very rare that taking a dependency could force you to update your toolchain in the embedded space.
Toolchain updates invalidate your entire testing history and make you revalidate everything, which is often a giant PITA when your testing involves physical things (ex you may have to plug and unplug things, put the system in chambers that replicate certain environmental conditions, etc).
- C23: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3096.pdf
- Cobol 2023: https://www.incits.org/news-events/news-coverage/available-n... (random press release since a PDF of the standard didn't immediately show up in a search)
- Fortran 2023: https://wg5-fortran.org/N2201-N2250/N2212.pdf
C2Y has a fair number of already-accepted features as well and it's relatively early in the standard release cycle: https://thephd.dev/c2y-hitting-the-ground-running
C23 seems to have decent support from a few compilers, with GCC leading the pack: https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/compiler_support/23.html
gcobol supports (or at least aims to support?) COBOL 2023: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-15.1.0/gcobol/gcobol.html. Presumably there are other compilers working on support as well.
Intel's Fortran compiler and LFortran have partial support for Fortran 2023 (https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/t..., https://docs.lfortran.org/en/usage/). I'd guess that support both from these compilers and from other compilers (Flang?) would improve over time as well..
I'd also be a bit hesitant about claiming that nobody is using said features. It's quite possible that the "new" feature is actually "just" a standardization of something that exists in practice. WG14 is hardly a stranger to that kind of thing, from what I understand; it wouldn't surprise me if something similar occurs for the Fortran/COBOL working groups as well.
Does make me curious how the dynamics of the Fortran/COBOL committees differs from that of the C/C++ committees.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/36703867/golang-preproce...
Wouldn't this work? Surely the empty function would be removed completely during compilation?
Like why defend C in 2025 when you only have to defend C in 2000 and then argue you have a old, stable, deeply tested, C code base which has no problem with anything like "commonly having memory safety issues" and is maintained by a small group of people very highly skilled in C.
Like that argument alone is all you need, a win, simple straight forward, hard to contest.
But most of the other arguments they list can be picked apart and are only half true.
> Safe languages usually want to abort if they encounter an out-of-memory (OOM) situation. SQLite is designed to recover gracefully from an OOM. It is unclear how this could be accomplished in the current crop of safe languages.
I don't think most Rust code written today has guardrails in the case of OOM. I don't think this disqualifies Rust for most things, because I happen to find the trade-off worth it compared to the things it does protect against that C doesn't, but I don't think it's a particularly controversial take that Rust still could use some ergonomic improvements around handling allocation failures. Right now, trying to create a Box or Vec can theoretically fail at runtime if no memory is available, and those failures aren't returned from the functions called to create them. Handling panics is something you can normally do in Rust, but if you're already OOM, things get complicated pretty fast.
I agree that in the long run it would probably make sense to have something like this in Rust when eventually the current maintainers aren't around, but I also don't think it makes much sense to criticize them for continuing to maintain the code that already exists.
I'd like to see you pick the other arguments apart
Not OP, And I'm not really arguing with the post, but this struck me as a really odd thing to include in the article. Of course nothing is going to be faster then C, because it compiles straight to machine code with no garbage collection. Literally any language that does the same will be the same speed but not faster, because there's no way to be faster. It's physically impossible.
A much better statement, and one inline with the rest of the article, would be that at the time C and C++ were really the only viable languages that gave them the performance they wanted, and C++ wouldn't have given them the interoperability they wanted. So their only choice was C.
There is nothing special about C that makes this true. C has semantics, just like any language, that are higher level than assembly, and sometimes, those semantics make the code slower than other languages that have different semantics.
Consider this C function:
void redundant_store(int *a, int *b) {
int t = *a + 1;
*a = t;
*b = 0; // May clobber *a if (b == a)
*a = t;
}
redundant_store:
mov eax, dword ptr [rdi]
inc eax
mov dword ptr [rdi], eax
mov dword ptr [rsi], 0
mov dword ptr [rdi], eax
ret
Consider the Rust version:
pub fn redundant_store(a: &mut i32, b: &mut i32) {
let t = *a + 1;
*a = t;
*b = 0; // a and b must not alias, so can never clobber
*a = t;
}
redundant_store:
mov eax, dword ptr [rdi]
inc eax
mov dword ptr [rsi], 0
mov dword ptr [rdi], eax
ret
Sure, eliminating one single store isn't going to have a meaningful difference here. But that's not the point, the point is that "it's not possible to be faster than C because C is especially low level" just simply isn't true.
Yes, obviously different languages will produce different assembly based on the language semantics. So you will get performance differences. And it's certainly possible for code written in Rust or Zig or Odin to be more performant then C code depending on how it's written.
My point was about classes of languages (for lack of a better term). Loosely, from fastest to slowest you have:
1. Compiled languages (meaning straight to machine code) with manual memory management
2. Compiled languages with garbage collection
3. Languages that run in VMs but are AOT compiled or JITed
4. Purely interpreted languages.
I acknowledge that not all languages fit nicely into these and there will be exceptions, but it's a convenient mental model that's close enough for these purposes.
Languages in the first category are going to be the most performant. Obviously there will be some variation between them based on how the code is written, but unless it's written really poorly it's not going to drop into an entirely different category. Where as languages in other categories are going to be far more difficult if not impossible to get close to the same kind of performance.
And there is no meaningfully huge jumps left after the first group. We are all the way down at optimizing assembly code, and that's where you start to hit physical limitations. Some number of operations have to be executed and the CPU can only execute them so fast.
"None faster" means you can't just change languages like you could from Java to C (assuming you can write quality code in both) and see a substantial performance boost.
This reads to me as if you're saying C is in a class of its own. That may not be what you meant! But it's what I understood. C is the fastest language, period, and others may approach its speed (which is the ... part) but cannot surpass it. This is different than something like "C, Rust, Zig, and Odin are roughly the fastest languages."
Anyway, it's all good, we understand each other now. Sorry for appearing overly pedantic.
You have to say OK, I allow myself platform specific intrinsics and extensions even though those aren't standard ISO C, and that includes inline assembler. I can pick any compiler and tooling. And I won't count other languages which are transpiled to C for portability because hey in theory I could just write that C myself, couldn't I so they're not really faster.
At the end you're basically begging the question. "I claim C is fastest because I don't count anything else as faster" which is no longer a claim worth disputing.
The aliasing optimisations in Fortran and Rust stand out as obvious examples where to get the same perf in C requires you do global analysis (this is what Rust is side-stepping via language rules and the borrowck) which you can't afford in practice.
But equally the monomorphisation in C++ or Rust can be beneficial in a similar way, you could in principle do all this by hand in your C project but you won't, because time is finite, so you live without the optimisations.
Another somewhat related example is Fortran and C, where one reason Fortran could perform better than C is the restrictions Fortran places on aliasing. In theory, one could use restrict in C to replicate these aliasing restrictions, but in practice restrict is used fairly sparingly, to the point that when Rust tried to enable its equivalent it had to back out the change multiple times because it kept exposing bugs in LLVM's optimizer.
Two full-time core devs and three part-time "peripheral" devs.
> ... one day will pass away ...
And not a one of us are young :/.
"Why is SQLite coded in C and not Rust?" is a question, which immediately makes me want to ask "Why do you need SQLite coded in Rust?".
they have a blog hinting at some answers as to "why": https://turso.tech/blog/introducing-limbo-a-complete-rewrite...
SQLite is old, huge and known for its gigantic test coverage. There’s just so much to rewrite.
DuckDB is from 2019, so new enough to jump on the “rust is safe and fast”
Maybe autovectorization works, but can I just write a few ARM64 instructions on my Mac in Rust stable (notcexperimental/nightly) as I can do it in C/C++ by just including a few ARM specific header files?
The practical differences are larger than the theoretical differences, so I would expect the gap to diminish over time.
Rust reminded me of when I used to write database engines in Java. It required a lot more code, which has its own costs, but never really delivered on claims of comparable performance. The "more code" part largely comes down to the more limited ability to build good abstractions compared to C++20 and more limited composability. The "slower binaries" part comes down to worse codegen, which you can't blame on Rust per se, and a lot of extra overhead introduced in the code to satisfy the Rust safety model that would simply not be required in other systems languages.
Safety is a mixed bag. Rust can check several things at compile-time that C++20 cannot. C++20 can check several things at compile-time that Rust cannot.
For high-performance database-y code, memory is allocated at startup and is accessed via managed index handles. Rust does the same thing. In these types of memory models, i.e. no dynamic allocation and no raw pointers, both Rust and C++20 offer similar memory safety guarantees. Most high-performance software is thread-per-core that is almost purely single-threaded, so thread-safety concerns are limited.
That said, stripping away all of the above, the only real advantage that C++20 has its much more powerful toolset for building abstractions. Its performance and unique safety elements are based almost entirely on the ability to build concise, contextual, and highly composable abstractions as needed. This is not a feature that should be downplayed, I immediately miss it when I use most other languages.
The biggest gripe I have with a rewrite is... A lof of the time we rewrite for feature parity. Not the exact same thing. So you are kind ignoring/missing/forgetting all those edge cases and patches that were added along the way for so many niche or otherwise reasons.
This means broken software. Something which used to work before but not anymore. They'll have to encounter all of them again in the wild and fix it again.
Obviously if we are to rewrite an important piece of software like this, you'd emphasise more on all of these. But it's hard for me to comprehend whether it will be 100%.
But other than sqlite, think SDL. If it is to be rewritten. It's really hard for me to comprehend that it's negligible in effect. Am guessing horrible releases before it gets better. Users complaining for things that used work.
C is going to be there long after the next Rust is where my money is. And even if Rust is still present, there would be a new Rust then.
So why rewrite? Rewrites shouldn't be the default thinking no?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28278859 - August 2021
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16585120 - March 2018
The current doc no longer has any paragraphs about security, or even the word security once.
The 2021 edition of the doc contained this text which no longer appears: 'Safe languages are often touted for helping to prevent security vulnerabilities. True enough, but SQLite is not a particularly security-sensitive library. If an application is running untrusted and unverified SQL, then it already has much bigger security issues (SQL injection) that no "safe" language will fix.
It is true that applications sometimes import complete binary SQLite database files from untrusted sources, and such imports could present a possible attack vector. However, those code paths in SQLite are limited and are extremely well tested. And pre-validation routines are available to applications that want to read untrusted databases that can help detect possible attacks prior to use.'
https://web.archive.org/web/20210825025834/https%3A//www.sql...
I am not Dr Hipp, and therefore I like run-time checks.
Also, does it use doubly linked lists or graphs at all? Those can, in a way, be safer in C since Rust makes you roll your own virtual pointer arena.
You can implement a linked list in Rust the same as you would in C using raw pointers and some unsafe code. In fact there is one in the standard library.
You can write a linked list the same way you would in C if you wish.
sure, it's an old library they had pretty much anything (not because they don't know what they are doing but because shit happens)
lets check CVEs of the last few years:
- CVE-2025-29088 type confusion
- CVE-2025-29087 out of bounds write
- CVE-2025-7458 integer overflow, possible in optimized rust but test builds check for it
- CVE-2025-6965 memory corruption, rust might not have helped
- CVE-2025-3277 integer overflow, rust might have helped
- CVE-2024-0232 use after free
- CVE-2023-36191 segmentation violation, unclear if rust would have helped
- CVE-2023-7104 buffer overflow
- CVE-2022-46908 validation logic error
- CVE-2022-35737 array bounds overflow
- CVE-2021-45346 memory leak
...
as you can see the majority of CVEs of sqlite are much less likely in rust (but a rust sqlite impl. likely would use unsafe, so not impossible)
as a side note there being so many CVEs in 2025 seem to be related to better some companies (e.g. Google) having done quite a bit of fuzz testing of SQLite
other takeaways:
- 100% branch coverage is nice, but doesn't guarantee memory soundness in C
- given how deeply people look for CVEs in SQLite the number of CVEs found is not at all as bad as it might look
but also one final question:
SQLite uses some of the best C programmers out there, only they merge anything to the code, it had very limited degree of change compared to a typical company project. And we still have memory vulnerabilities. How is anyone still arguing for C for new projects?
Yeah I essentially agree. I'm sure there are still plenty of good cases for C, depending on project size, experience of the engineers, integration with existing libraries, target platform, etc. But it definitely seems like Rust would be the better option in scenarios where there's not some a priori thing that strongly skews toward or forces C.
It just works
Alternately, maybe there's a spectrum of undesirable behaviors, some of which are preventable by choice of language, some of which aren't, and trying to reduce a complex set of tradeoffs to a simple binary of whether it "just works" only restates the conclusion someone has already come to because you need to actually reason about those tradeoffs to come to an informed decision of where to implicitly draw the line in the first place.
It's being compared to a C library that's held to extremely high standards, yet this year had two integer overflow CVEs and two other memory corruption CVEs.
SQLite is a lot more code, but it's also been around a lot longer.
furthermore the issue at core was an integer overflow, which is tricky in all languages and e.g. has poppet up on HN recently in context of "proven correct" code still having bugs (because the prove didn't use finit precision integers)
it's also less tricky in rust then in C due to no implicit casts and debug build checking for integer overflows and tests normally running against debug builds
Projects do sometimes enable it even on release builds for security sensitive code(1).
so if anything the linked issue is in favor of using rust over C while acting as a reminder that no solution is perfect
(1): It comes at a high performance cost, but sometimes for some things it's an acceptable cost. Also you can change such setting per crate. E.g. at a company I worked at a few years ago we did build some sensitive and iffy but not hot parts always with such checks enabled and some supper hot ML parts always with optimizations enabled even for "debug/test" builds.
It has async I/O support on Linux with io_uring, vector support, BEGIN CONCURRENT for improved write throughput using multi-version concurrency control (MVCC), Encryption at rest, incremental computation using DBSP for incremental view maintenance and query subscriptions.
Time will tell, but this may well be the future of SQLite.
Also, this is a VC backed project. Everyone has to eat, but I suspect that Turso will not go out of its way to offer a Public Domain offering or 50 year support in the way that SQLite has.
The aim is to be compatible with sqlite, and a drop-in replacement for it, so I think it's fair use.
> Also, this is a VC backed project. Everyone has to eat, but I suspect that Turso will not go out of its way to offer a Public Domain offering or 50 year support in the way that SQLite has.
It's MIT license open-source. And unlike sqlite, encourages outside contribution. For this reason, I think it can "win".
It’s absolutely inappropriate and appropriative.
They’ve been poor community members from the start when they publicized their one-sided spat with SQLite over their contribution policy.
The reality is that they are a VC-funded company focused on the “edge database” hypetrain that’s already dying out as it becomes clear that CAP theorem isn’t something you can just pretend doesn’t exist.
It’ll very likely be dead in a few years, but even if it’s not, a VC-funded project isn’t a replacement for SQLite. It would take incredibly unique advantages to shift literally the entire world away from SQLite.
It’s a new thing, not the next evolution of SQLite.
Either way, the math is different this time. SQLite isn’t heavy server-side software written in Java with weaknesses that leave it obviously open for market disruption.
It’s also a public domain gift to the world that literally everything has deployed — often in extremely demanding and complex environments.
I work for a major consumer product manufacturer, and I can guarantee that we will not be switching away from SQLite anytime soon, and if we ever do, it will not be to a VC-backed project with a history like this one has, no matter how much hype startup bros try to create around the idea of disrespectful and appropriative disruption.
VC-funded ‘open’ databases almost always follow the same arc: borrow legitimacy, capture attention, then fence it off. It’s the inevitability of the incentives they’ve chosen.
I am sure you understand that I have absolutely nothing to do with Scylla's licensing. I have not worked there for four years nor was I ever in a position there that I would even had that opportunity to influence such decisions.
I am also sure you understand that Scylla's development model was completely different: they had AGPL license and contributors had to sign a CLA, which is why they were able to relicense in the first place. Turso is MIT licensed and there's no barrier to contributing and, therefore, already a much bigger contributor base.
I fully understand the scepticism, but you're mistaken about the open source history of Turso's founders.
try marketing your burger company as "The Next Evolution of McDonalds" and see what happens
SQLite is NOT being rewritten in Rust!
>>Turso Database is an in-process SQL database written in Rust, compatible with SQLite.
turdso is VC funded so will probably be defunct in 2 years
Compatible with SQLite. So it's another database?
Occasionally when working in Lua I'd write something low-level in C++, wrap it in C, and then call the C wrapper from Lua. It's extra boilerplate but damn is it nice to have a REPL for your C++ code.
Edit: Because someone else will say it - Rust binary artifacts _are_ kinda big by default. You can compile libstd from scratch on nightly (it's a couple flags) or you can amortize the cost by packing more functions into the same binary, but it is gonna have more fixed overhead than C or C++.
If I want a "C Library", I want a "C Library" and not some weird abomination that has been surgically grafted to libstdc++ or similar (but be careful of which version as they're not compatible and the name mangling changes and ...).
This isn't theoretical. It's such a pain that the C++ folks started resorting to header-only libraries just to sidestep the nightmare.
This makes me less safe rather than more. Note that there is a substantial double standard here, we could never in the name of safety impose this level of burden from C tooling side because maintainers would rightfully be very upset (even toggling a warning in the default set causes discussions). For the same reason it should be unacceptable to use Rust before this is fixed, but somehow the memory safety absolutists convinced many people that this is more important than everything else. (I also think memory safety is important, but I can't help but thinking that pushing for Rust is more harmful to me than good. )
So you might think, but there is a committee actively undermining this, not to mention compiler people keeping things exciting also.
There is a dogged adherence to backward compatibility, so that you can't pretend C has not gone anywhere in thirty-five years, if you like --- provided you aren't invoking too much undefined behavior. (You can't as easily pretend that your compiler has not gone anywhere in 35 years with regard to things you are doing out of spec.)
Sqlite has been recoded (automatically) in Go a while ago [1], and it is widely deployed
> would probably introduce far more bugs than would be fixed
It runs against the same test suite with no issues
> and it may also result in slower code
It is quite a lot slower, but it is still widely used as it turns out that the convenience of a native port outweighs the performance penalty in most cases.
I don't think SQLite should be rewritten in Go, Rust, Zig, Nim, Swift ... but ANSI C is a subset of the feature set of most modern programming languages. Projects such as this could be written and maintained in C indefinitely, and be automatically translated to other languages for the convenience of users in those languages
It runs against the same public test suite. The proprietary test suite is much more intensive.
It runs against the same test suite with no issues
- that proves nothing about bugs existing or not.
That doesn't guarantee no bugs. It just means that the existing behaviour covered by the tests is still the same. It may introduce new issues in untested edge cases or performance issues
So, the argument for keeping SQLite written in C is that it gives the user the choice to either:
- Build SQLite with Yolo-C, in which case you get excellent performance and lots of tooling. And it's boring in the way that SQLite devs like. But it's not "safe" in the sense of memory safe languages.
- Build SQLite with Fil-C, in which case you get worse (but still quite good) performance and memory safety that exceeds what you'd get with a Rust/Go/Java/whatever rewrite.
Recompiling with Fil-C is safer than a rewrite into other memory safe languages because Fil-C is safe through all dependencies, including the syscall layer. Like, making a syscall in Rust means writing some unsafe code where you could screw up buffer sizes or whatnot, while making a syscall in Fil-C means going through the Fil-C runtime.
Safe languages insert additional machine branches to do things like verify that array accesses are in-bounds. In correct code, those branches are never taken. That means that the machine code cannot be 100% branch tested, which is an important component of SQLite's quality strategy.
Rust needs to mature a little more, stop changing so fast, and move further toward being old and boring.
Rust needs to demonstrate that it can do the kinds of work that C does in SQLite without a significant speed penalty.This is annoying in Rust. To me array accesses aren't the most annoying, it's match{} branches that will never been invoked.
There is unreachable!() for such situations, and you would hope that:
if array_access_out_of_bounds { unreachable!(); }
Your example does what [] does already, it’s just a more verbose way of writing the same thing. It’s not the same behavior as sqlite.
https://algora.io/challenges/turso "Turso is rewriting SQLite in Rust ; Find a bug to win $1,000"
------
- Dec 10, 2024 : "Introducing Limbo: A complete rewrite of SQLite in Rust"
https://turso.tech/blog/introducing-limbo-a-complete-rewrite...
- Jan 21, 2025 - "We will rewrite SQLite. And we are going all-in"
https://turso.tech/blog/we-will-rewrite-sqlite-and-we-are-go...
- Project: https://github.com/tursodatabase/turso
Status: "Turso Database is currently under heavy development and is not ready for production use."
turso has 341 rust source files spread across tens of directories and 514 (!) external dependencies that produce (in release mode) 16 libraries and 7 binaries with tursodb at 48M and libturso_sqlite3.so at 36M.
looks roughly an order of magnitude larger to me. it would be interesting to understand the memory usage characteristics in real-world workloads. these numbers also sort of capture the character of the languages. for extreme portability and memory efficiency, probably hard to beat c and autotools though.
I suppose SQLite might use a C linter tool that can prove the bounds checks happen at a higher layer, and then elide redundant ones in lower layers, but... C compilers won't do that by default, they'll just write memory-unsafe machine code. Right?
"....Safe languages insert additional machine branches to do things like verify that array accesses are in-bounds. In correct code, those branches are never taken. That means that the machine code cannot be 100% branch tested, which is an important component of SQLite's quality strategy..."
"...Safe languages usually want to abort if they encounter an out-of-memory (OOM) situation. SQLite is designed to recover gracefully from an OOM. It is unclear how this could be accomplished in the current crop of safe languages..."
Talking about C99, or C++11, and then “oh you need the nightly build of rust” were juxtaposed in such a way that I never felt comfortable banging out “yum install rust” and giving it a go.
(There are some decent reasons to use the nightly toolchain in development even if you don’t rely on any unfinished features in your codebase, but that means they build on stable anyway just fine if you prefer.)
The Rust Project releases a new stable compiler every six weeks. Because it is backwards compatible, most people update fairly quickly, as it is virtually always painless. So this may mean, if you don’t update your compiler, you may try out a new package version and it may use features or standard library calls that don’t exist in the version you’re using, because the authors updated regularly. There’s been some developments in Cargo to try and mitigate some of this, but since it’s not what the majority of users do, it’s taken a while and those features landed relatively recently, so they’re not widely adopted yet.
Nightly features are ones that aren’t properly accepted into the language yet, and so are allowed to break in backwards incompatible ways at any time.
One stupid workaround is combining multiple columns into one, with values separated by a space, for example. This works when each column value is always a string containing no spaces
Another stupid workaround, probably slower, might be to hash the multiple columns into a new column and use ON CONFLICT(newcolumn_name)
At this point I wish the creators of the language could talk about what rust is bad at.
Not only had this fellow built a functional ISP in one of the toughest markets (at that time), in the world - but he'd also managed to build the database engine and quite a few of the other tools that ran that ISP, and was in danger of setting a few standards for a few things which, since then, have long since settled out, but .. nevertheless .. it could've been.
Anyway, this fellow wrote everything in C. His web page, his TODO.h for the day .. he had C-based tools for managing his docs, for doing syncs between various systems under his command (often in very far-away locations, and even under water a couple times) .. everything, in C.
The database system he wrote in pure C was, at the time, quite a delight. It gave a few folks further up the road a bit of a tight neck.
He went on to do an OS, because of course he did.
Just sayin', SQLite devs aren't the only ones who got this right. ;)
Zig gives the programmer more control than Rust. I think this is one of the reasons why TigerBeetle is written in Zig.
More control over what exactly? Allocations? There is nothing Zig can do that Rust can’t.
I mean yeah, allocations. Allocations are always explicit. Which is not true in C++ or Rust.
Personally I don't think it's that big of a deal, but it's a thing and maybe some people care enough.
...If you're using the alloc/std crates (which to be fair, is probably the vast majority of Rust devs). libcore and the Rust language itself do not allocate at all, so if you use appropriate crates and/or build on top of libcore yourself you too can have an explicit-allocation Rust (though perhaps not as ergonomic as Zig makes it).
I read your response 3 times and I truly don't know what you mean. Mind explaining with a simple example?
Hash maps in zig std are another great example, where you can use adapter to completely change how the data is stored and accessed while keeping the same API [1]. For example to have map with limited memory bound that automatically truncates itself, in rust you need to either write completely new data structure for this or rely on someone's crate again (indexmap).
Errors in zig compose also better, in rust I find error handling really annoying. Anyhow makes it better for application development but you shouldn't use it if writing libraries.
When writing zig I always feel like I can reuse pieces of existing code by combining the building blocks at hand (including freestanding targets!). While in rust I always feel like you need go for the fully tailored solution with its own gotchas, which is ironic considering how many crates there are and how many crates projects depend on vs. typical zig projects that often don't depend on lots of stuff.
1: https://zig.news/andrewrk/how-to-use-hash-map-contexts-to-sa...
From section "1.2 Compatibility". How easy is it to embed a library written in Zig in, say, a small embedded system where you may not be using Zig for the rest of the work?
Also, since you're the submitter, why did you change the title? It's just "Why is SQLite Coded in C", you added the "and not Rust" part.
From the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Any idea what this refers to? assert is a macro in C. Is the implication that OP wants the capability of testing conditions and then turning off the tests in a production release? If so, then I think the argument is more that go hates the idea of a preprocessor. Or have I misunderstood the point being made?
One reason I enjoy Go is because of the pragmatic stdlib. On most cases, I can get away without pulling in any 3p deps.
Now of course Go doesn’t work where you can’t tolerate GC pauses and need some sort of FFI. But because of the stdlib and faster compilation, Go somehow feels lighter than Rust.