3 ms·
Are you sure? > That’s why we’re expanding our collaboration with the Internet Security Research Group to support the reimplementation of critical open-source
by wyldfire 6y ago
Are you sure?
> That’s why we’re expanding our collaboration with the Internet Security Research Group to support the reimplementation of critical open-source software in memory-safe languages.
Though the rest of the article doesn't go into detail about this effort beyond http/TLS libs for curl.
- smoyer 6y agoThe quote you provide above doesn't specify that these rewrites are to be in Rust and I don't think you've contradicted the parent in any way. The examples have been in Rust but the foundation doesn't seem to insist on rewrites being done in a specific language. As an aside, the foundation doesn't seem to be much more than a collection of papers at this point.
- praptak 6y agoThe "memory-safe languages" may mean Go, Java and a bunch of other less popular languages.
- oscargrouch 6y agoIn the end of the day only Rust will be chosen because we are talking mostly about system infrastructure.
- jaas 6y agoRust is going to be used often, but we are open to other choices when they make sense. Since most unsafe code is C or C++, Rust usually makes the most sense for rewriting one component at a time. It integrates with C and C++ very cleanly because it has good FFI and no runtime. If we were rewriting more projects from scratch and integration with existing C and C++ code was not important, we might use other languages more often. I don't expect we'll attempt to rewrite many pieces of software from scratch. Source: I run the memory safety initiative at ISRG.