2 ms·

That's why I said new software. I understand that it is unrealistic to rewrite existing software in many cases.

• wakawaka28 3y ago
  It's also unrealistic to expect existing software to go away. So "memory unsafe" languages aren't going anywhere. People who don't want to learn how to manage memory correctly have had good alternatives to C and C++ for decades, each with their own drawbacks. And C and C++ remain viable with active developer communities despite all the attacks over a span of decades crying about memory management being difficult.
  • _mlbt 3y ago
    The crux of the problem is not that memory management is difficult, it’s that with unsafe languages it is dangerously error prone. In the 70s and 80s most machines were considerably more resource constrained and either on closed networks or not networked at all. In today’s world where everything is connected to 24/7 high speed internet these are risks that just aren’t worth taking for most new software projects.
    • wakawaka28 3y ago
      You say it isn't difficult but it is "error-prone", which is a contradiction. Either it is hard to get right or it isn't. I think it might be but not to the extent you do. Whatever issues we have with memory management, solutions exist and have existed for decades. People who continue to use so-called "unsafe" languages tend to know what they're doing. There are lots of solutions out there besides rewriting in another language that isn't that much less error-prone, such as Rust.
      • ModernMech 3y ago
        I think what the parent means to say is that memory management is simple to understand, but it’s hard to get right. Put differently, a developer can grok how to properly manage memory, but we’ve found that trying really hard to get it right does not scale. Even if you’re an expert. We need tools to check our work.