4 ms·
You don't do security by switching programming languages. If you think you do then you have more serious problems to deal with than picking a programming langua
by rumanator 7y ago
You don't do security by switching programming languages. If you think you do then you have more serious problems to deal with than picking a programming language.
- pjmlp 7y agoThe security teams from Microsoft, Google and Apple think differently.
- anthk 7y agoUntil the Rust runtime gets vulnerable and hilarity ensues. Well, not much. Everyone trusted rust blindly, shit happens x200 everywhere.
- pjmlp 7y agoC folks are so afraid of Rust taking their baby away. When we security minded people talk about secure languages, we have a panoply to chose from, Swift, D, OCaml, Java, .NET, ATS, Ada, Go, Nim, Zig, Crystal and many more, yet you always think that we speak only about Rust.
- rumanator 7y ago> C folks are so afraid of Rust taking their baby away. This tribal way of thinking makes no sense at all. I qualify as a C and C++ developer and I'm very excited with Rust. The only baby there is is the software project we are working on.
- pjmlp 7y agoIt makes sense in the context that every time one mentions safe systems programming, most people of that background only think about Rust. Meanwhile I, and others have been replacing C and C++ written applications by safer stacks long before Rust was born. And on mobile OSes, the alternative languagea that are being pushed are not Rust. Yet the replies are always as if we are only talking about Rust as alternative.
- anthk 7y agoI like Go. It's a logical step over the C and Unix portability philosophy, expecially the C from plan9/9front, where cross-compiling is dead easy.
- steveklabnik 7y ago(Rust has about as much runtime as C and C++ do)
- anthk 7y agoNo.