3 ms·
It seems fairly obvious that if Language A's design prevents a certain class of bugs possible in Language B's design, A is safer than B. If someone isn't satisf
by Kaveren 8y ago
It seems fairly obvious that if Language A's design prevents a certain class of bugs possible in Language B's design, A is safer than B. If someone isn't satisfied by this, they probably are biased against Language A. I'd tell the hypothetical person to try writing a buffer overflow vulnerability in safe Rust.
That said, I can't find the source right now but I believe the quote is something along the lines a sizable percentage of Firefox's security bugs would be less severe or nonexistent in Rust vs. C++.
- pjmlp 8y agoUsually with the argumentation that nicksecurity is referring to, they eventually switch to is "but Language A still allows for bugs class type X thus why bother". So one then needs to resort to statistics and other stuff as argument validation. For example, even after being proven wrong with Godbolt that it is possible to write safer code in C++, while keeping the same or even less hardware requirements, many embedded C devs still argue that it is not worthwhile for safer code. Rust, just like other (almost) memory safe systems languages will get the same human judgement.