5 ms·
The problem with this attitude is: * The claims aren't baseless. We've seen for decades already that memory safe languages have fewer memory safety issues than
by staticassertion 6y ago
The problem with this attitude is:
* The claims aren't baseless. We've seen for decades already that memory safe languages have fewer memory safety issues than languages that are not memory safe.
* Asking for hard proof is silly in software. There's tons of research into programming languages and their impact on software projects, across a number of areas, and it's all fairly useless - it's extremely expensive to do right, and impossible to objectively measure.
Common sense isn't propaganda.
- Rochus 6y ago> that memory safe languages have fewer memory safety issues than languages That's what I would assume ;-) By the end of the day it's also a question of performance. For embedded, realtime or mobile core technologies there will always be a need to shortcut. > Asking for hard proof is silly in software. Not only in software. That's what the scientific method is for. That needs time. Currently there is a debate whether the switch from Ada to C++ for the F-35 is the cause of all the observed problems and budget overruns. There is still not enough data to know. But there was a decade-long track record for Ada in avionics. And C++ also had to establish itself for twenty years before anyone dared to develop an F-35 with it.
- saagarjha 6y ago> Asking for hard proof is silly in software. You can however prove that the language solves a particular attack ;)
- Rochus 6y agoDo you have a reference where this has been done with Ada/Spark?