3 ms·
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
by 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 agoMy 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 agoIt'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.