4 ms·
> I posit that the second set stays the same size: there’s no reason or evidence to think that porting C++ to a memory-safe language results in additional SQL i
by abainbridge 5y ago
> I posit that the second set stays the same size: there’s no reason or evidence to think that porting C++ to a memory-safe language results in additional SQL injection.
I think I disagree, although I prefer C to C++ these days. I posit that memory safe programming languages are more complex than C and sometimes cause code that would be simple in C to be written in a more complex way to allow the memory safety to be maintained. I posit that complexity is one of the causes of security vulnerabilities.
- ksml 5y agoCan you give an example?
- abainbridge 5y agoI can't think of a good one. Graph-like data structures is a common example of something that's a bit difficult in Rust - see https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34747464/implement-graph-like-data-structure-in-rust https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34747464/implement-graph.... But the answers there seem reasonable and I'm not a Rust expert. I guess my point is that nobody would even need to ask this question if the implementation was in C.