5 ms·
Well, there are groups that want a government mandate for this, though. If you don't know, Consumer Reports is paid by groups interested in encouraging the gov
by slimsag 3y ago
Well, there are groups that want a government mandate for this, though.
If you don't know, Consumer Reports is paid by groups interested in encouraging the government to apply regulations to certain areas. A bike helmet manufacturer may pay them to create a report, host events, and otherwise lobby on their behalf to e.g. create regulations about people needing to use bike helmets.
It is my understanding that many Rust advocates, security researchers, and members of the Internet Society are effectively advocating/lobbying for partial government mandates of 'memory-safe languages'[0]:
> It’s not yet possible for government procurement to only buy memory-safe software. For example, you can’t say routers must be memory-safe top to bottom because no such products currently exist. But it may be possible for the government to say that newly developed custom components have to be memory-safe to slowly shift the industry forward.
> This would require some type of central coordination and trust in that system. The government could ask for a memory safety road map as part of procurement. The map would explain how the companies plan to eliminate memory-unsafe code in their products over time. The carrot approach for memory safety may include not just decreased future costs in cybersecurity, but also reliability and efficiency.
[0] https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Memory-Safety-Convening-Report.pdf https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2023...
- 2devnull 3y agoRust programmers want the government dollarinos? Amazing. It did feel a bit coordinated.
- UncleMeat 3y ago"${LANGUAGE} programmers" aren't really a thing. Our important skills translate fairly cleanly between ecosystems.
- 2devnull 3y agoOk fine, then to quote the parent to whom I was responding, “Rust advocates.” I am willing to bet that most of those “Rust advocates” are programmers who code in Rust but I’m fine with not calling them that. I agree that good programmers should be able to work in different languages, operating systems, countries.
- UncleMeat 3y agoMy point is that even in a world where the government mandates that certain applications that would otherwise be written in C++ are instead written in Rust or Swift we wouldn't see some massive loss of work for people who currently program in C++.
- 2devnull 3y agoOk, that’s a fair point. Imagine you’re Bjarne Stroustrup, sure he doesn’t consider himself a c++ programmer, and he isn’t worried about his employment prospects, but he still has a vested interest in this issue.
- slimsag 3y agoWe may see that the 'next generation' of 'better' programming languages (the next Swift, the next Rust, etc.) cannot easily/readily/practically become certified for government use, though, leading to less innovation long term. For example, if this had already happened we may find today that Java is certified for use but that Rust is simply not allowed, while maybe Swift is because of Apple's backing of it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]