5 ms·
>"the safety aspects of rust have never been problems for me." You are very likely wrong in this statement, and the fact that you don't even know how much insec
by tatersolid 9y ago
>"the safety aspects of rust have never been problems for me."
You are very likely wrong in this statement, and the fact that you don't even know how much insecure code you've shipped is exactly the problem with C/C++.
The most experienced C/C++ programers in the world continue to produce security vulnerabilities, even when they're really trying to code defensively and follow best practices.
- jstewartmobile 9y agoHow about "the safety aspects of rust have been" DWARFED by the absolute shitshow of platforms and PC hardware. If we have to redo everything to get the full benefit, we could do a damn sight better than just memory safety and race conditions. Another bittwiddler++ language is just digging the hole deeper.
- tatersolid 9y agoI have to point out that the very name "C++" is a security vulnerability in said language. I learned to program in C, during the dawn of the Internet. Yes, the "I can do anything on the machine" power was fun. But when considering all C/C++ code is completely insecure by default, it really shouldn't be used to build anything new that processes untrusted input (which is just about everything). There are a few decades worth of mature alternatives that should be considered first, plus a few newcomers like Rust and golang.
- jstewartmobile 9y agoExperienced programmers produce security vulnerabilities in garbage-collected languages. Experienced programmers produce security vulnerabilities in languages that don't even do parallelism. When someone goes on about how Rust's weak "guarantees"[0] on memory safety and data races are going to make code "secure," I don't know how to politely respond to that level of delusion. [0] 'unsafe' blocks and the non-Rust world everything has to tie-into