4 ms·
I don't think a lot of people will see this the same way you do. I think a lot of people will care about even a 1% degradation in performance. And people will
by chocolatebunny 8y ago
I don't think a lot of people will see this the same way you do. I think a lot of people will care about even a 1% degradation in performance. And people will prefer a tried and true operating system for security over something that hasn't been tested in the real world, even if it's designed to eliminate one class of security vulnerabilities.
- ianai 8y agoPossibly many (all?) of the Microsoft/Windows shops/departments would agree.
- dahart 8y agoNobody suggested using untested code, parent said they’d trade a small amount of perf for more security. I do think a lot of people would make that trade, all else being equal, once a viable tested replacement actually exists. HLLs exist in the first place because a lot of people are willing to trade a little perf for more security, faster development, and lower costs. That said, nobody’s disputing that a “lot” of people care about performance. It’s worth taking a look at the last slide of the presentation, which states clearly that if you care about performance, you should use C: Performance is paramount ⇒ use C (up to 15%) Minimize memory use ⇒ use C (↓ mem. budget, ↑ GC cost) Safety is paramount ⇒ use HLL (40 CVEs stopped) Performance merely important ⇒ use HLL (pay 15%, memory)
- nickpsecurity 8y agoOr just profile-guided optimization and/or superoptimizers after using a HLL. ;)