3 ms·
Unsafe sounds like a really bad word, but unsafe usually also means performant. I know that's not always the case, but usually. Rust falls in the exception to t
by shaklee3 8y ago
Unsafe sounds like a really bad word, but unsafe usually also means performant. I know that's not always the case, but usually. Rust falls in the exception to that rule category, for the most part, while C# does not. Also, the people typically working on these codebases, like Linux, are very senior developers and have code reviews being done by other very senior people. So while they definitely have had a lot of bugs related to security in the language, we don't have any examples of other languages implementing something anywhere near this size that didn't have as many bugs.
- pjmlp 8y agoAccording to Google's security team 68% of exploits in Linux are due to memory corruption. Source, their keynote at Linux Kernel Summit 2018. Check DoD security assement of Multics versus UNIX regarding ease of security exploits, and how using PL/I prevented the large majority of them. On the mobile now, the document is accessible at the Multics history site. Or any deployment of High Integrity Computing OSes for that matter.
- shaklee3 8y agoYou could also say freebsd has far, far fewer memory corruption bugs. Is that the language, the small user base, or something else?