3 ms·
"in a way that improved performance rather than making it worse" This part is not realistic if it's apples to apples. Performance will always drop because the
by nickpsecurity 9y ago
"in a way that improved performance rather than making it worse"
This part is not realistic if it's apples to apples. Performance will always drop because the high performance came specifically by doing unsafe things that enable attackers. Adding checks or restrictions slows it down. The question is whether it can be done without slowing things down too much. I'm hopeful about this given many people are comfortably using their PC's and the net on 8-year old PC's w/ Core Duo 2's that still run pretty well. That was 65nm tech. Matching it or at least a smartphone is what I'd aim at for first run.
- catern 9y ago>Performance will always drop because the high performance came specifically by doing unsafe things that enable attackers. No, this is not true. Strong static typing and other compile-time information can (at least theoretically) allow improving both security and performance. For example, look at single address space operating systems. Switching between security domains is cheaper when you don't have to switch address spaces. That's an improvement to security that allows increased efficiency.
- nickpsecurity 9y agoWe were talking about C code. That doesn't have strong, static typing with built-in safety. C developers also rejected things like Cyclone and Clay. So, my comment assumes a C-based platform (esp OS).