![](https://lemmy.sdf.org/pictrs/image/28746aeb-3309-4b34-bda2-619775ddd5c3.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8286e071-7449-4413-a084-1eb5242e2cf4.png)
Yay… Capitalism…
Yay… Capitalism…
The short answer is Rust was built with safety in mind. The longer answer is C was built mostly to abstract from assembly without much thought to safety. In C, if you want to use an array, you must manually request a chunk of memory, check to make sure you are writing within the bounds of your array, and free up the memory used by your array when completely done using it. If you do not do those steps correctly, you could write to a null pointer, cause a buffer overflow error, a use-after-free error, or memory leak depending on what step was forgotten or done out of order. In Rust, the compiler keeps track of when variables are used through a borrowing system. With this borrowing system the Rust compiler requests and frees memory safely. It also checks array bounds at run-time without a programmer explicitly needing to code it in. Several high-level languages have alot of these safety features too. C# for example, can make sure objects are not freed until they fall out of scope, but it does this at run-time with a garbage collector where Rust borrower rules are done at compile-time.
It kinda do though. VSCode, without a project open has 10 processes running and uses over a half gig of ram. I like VSCode to be clear. I also like discord but it’s just a chat app and apparently needs a half gig itself and 6 processes.
I don’t think this is possible through DNS filtering because it is your home lemmy instance showing you the results. You could block specific communities, turn off NSFW posts in your profile, or use a filter in Ublock Origin. These are all client-side solutions and would not auto-apply to a whole network. I don’t think there is a feature to block posts from a whole instance without being in charge of your own instance and de-federating. I would wager a per-user instance block will be coming down the pipe eventually.
Adding even more grammar, you could use “Had no”, for lack of possession, like