4 ms·

Because software is generally written so that people use it. Memory unsafe languages have proven it's impossible to write secure software in, even by the best o

Because software is generally written so that people use it. Memory unsafe languages have proven it's impossible to write secure software in, even by the best of the best developers. That's why I made the comparison with seatbelts. If you want to drive your car on public roads(deliver production software to users) you are not allowed to use memory unsafe languages(you must use a seatbelt). If you just make software for yourself that you don't release to the public no one will care if you write it in C or whatever. It has nothing to do with anything you do. It has everything to do with the impact it has on everyone but yourself.

flyingfences 5y ago
I can assure you, the automotive industry uses more C/C++ than you've ever seen. C is used precisely because it's a mature and verifiable language.
- rowanG077 5y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is. I didn't claim memory unsafe languages aren't used, they obviously are. C is in fact not an easy language to verify. There have gone trillions of dollars into that and it's still not solved. You can't verify C. You might be able to verify a subset of C. But if you are in any position to choose any other language you should run, run, run quickly and far away from C.
  - flyingfences 5y ago
    My point is that your metaphor about "not [being] allowed to use memory unsafe languages" to build a car is completely backwards -- safety-critical embedded systems use C to avoid the abstractions introduced by higher-level languages.
    - rowanG077 5y ago
      It's not backwards. C is used out of necessity not because it's such a great language. Safety-critical embedded systems use C because they have to. Not because it's nice. Claiming they do because C is such a great language to write safety-critical software in is a special kind of Stockholm syndrome.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  There is no such language as C/C++. Your statement is meaningless, as stated.
BaculumMeumEst 5y ago
It’s also massively unsafe to drive in general, so we should probably ban the usage of cars wherever possible.
- rowanG077 5y ago
  Driving also brings great value. Using C over another language "Because you can't tell me what to do" does not. The more apt comparison would be if we had fully self driving cars that are proven to make almost no mistakes. And then still wanting to drive a car yourself on public roads, endangering yourself and others.
  - BaculumMeumEst 5y ago
    C and C++ still see overwhelming usage in many industries because of the business value they provide in terms of performance and how quickly you can produce software in it. That does not seem likely to change any time soon- game studios are not widely adopting rust, for example, and I don't expect that to change, even though they impact a MASSIVE amount of people. Hare's value proposition is simplicity- which allows you to better reason about the software you write, for one thing. We are each entitled to our own opinion about how valuable that is.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      C and C++ are at diametric opposite ends of the scale of value proposition. Listing them side by side eliminates any credibility your argument might have had. Hare's "value proposition" of simplicity is, simply, a shuck. Any software effort has essential complexity that your language may help you manage, or chuck you in the deep water to sink or swim. Hare does the latter, and is even self-righteous about it.
      - BaculumMeumEst 5y ago
        I mentioned performance and game development specifically. I'm sure you're aware that it's common to write C++ that's very close to C while taking advantage of few features of C++. I don't think it's fair to call that the "diametric opposite of C". Your opinion of Hare's view of simplicity is your opinion. Any software effort has some amount of essential complexity, in my experience many languages and tools quite a bit of incidental complexity that could be avoided.

flyingfences 5y ago

I can assure you, the automotive industry uses more C/C++ than you've ever seen. C is used precisely because it's a mature and verifiable language.

rowanG077 5y ago
I'm not sure what your point is. I didn't claim memory unsafe languages aren't used, they obviously are. C is in fact not an easy language to verify. There have gone trillions of dollars into that and it's still not solved. You can't verify C. You might be able to verify a subset of C. But if you are in any position to choose any other language you should run, run, run quickly and far away from C.
- flyingfences 5y ago
  My point is that your metaphor about "not [being] allowed to use memory unsafe languages" to build a car is completely backwards -- safety-critical embedded systems use C to avoid the abstractions introduced by higher-level languages.
  - rowanG077 5y ago
    It's not backwards. C is used out of necessity not because it's such a great language. Safety-critical embedded systems use C because they have to. Not because it's nice. Claiming they do because C is such a great language to write safety-critical software in is a special kind of Stockholm syndrome.
ncmncm 5y ago
There is no such language as C/C++. Your statement is meaningless, as stated.

BaculumMeumEst 5y ago

It’s also massively unsafe to drive in general, so we should probably ban the usage of cars wherever possible.

rowanG077 5y ago
Driving also brings great value. Using C over another language "Because you can't tell me what to do" does not. The more apt comparison would be if we had fully self driving cars that are proven to make almost no mistakes. And then still wanting to drive a car yourself on public roads, endangering yourself and others.
- BaculumMeumEst 5y ago
  C and C++ still see overwhelming usage in many industries because of the business value they provide in terms of performance and how quickly you can produce software in it. That does not seem likely to change any time soon- game studios are not widely adopting rust, for example, and I don't expect that to change, even though they impact a MASSIVE amount of people. Hare's value proposition is simplicity- which allows you to better reason about the software you write, for one thing. We are each entitled to our own opinion about how valuable that is.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    C and C++ are at diametric opposite ends of the scale of value proposition. Listing them side by side eliminates any credibility your argument might have had. Hare's "value proposition" of simplicity is, simply, a shuck. Any software effort has essential complexity that your language may help you manage, or chuck you in the deep water to sink or swim. Hare does the latter, and is even self-righteous about it.
    - BaculumMeumEst 5y ago
      I mentioned performance and game development specifically. I'm sure you're aware that it's common to write C++ that's very close to C while taking advantage of few features of C++. I don't think it's fair to call that the "diametric opposite of C". Your opinion of Hare's view of simplicity is your opinion. Any software effort has some amount of essential complexity, in my experience many languages and tools quite a bit of incidental complexity that could be avoided.