3 ms·
> 70% sounds a bit high but I can accept it One meta-source for this is Prossimo[0]. They link to multiple vendor reports that range from 60 - 90%. > Writing
by marcus0x62 3y ago
> 70% sounds a bit high but I can accept it
One meta-source for this is Prossimo[0]. They link to multiple vendor reports that range from 60 - 90%.
> Writing safe code in C is HARD but possible. Especially with good tooling.
I don’t disagree in theory, but I think it is so hard as to be impractical in almost every case. So, other than maintaining a legacy code base, why try at this point when other options are available?
0 - https://www.memorysafety.org/docs/memory-safety/#how-common-are-memory-safety-vulnerabilities https://www.memorysafety.org/docs/memory-safety/#how-common-...
- hgs3 3y ago> So, other than maintaining a legacy code base, why try at this point when other options are available? What options would you recommend in 2024? I write C (not C++) and work on projects that are inherently memory unsafe (the last one required hand-written assembly code). I've explored potential C successors in the past, but have yet to discover one that matches the freedoms, simplicity, ergonomics, and performance of the C language.
- ttfkam 3y agoZig. It's not as safe as Rust, but it's a hell of a lot better than C while remaining largely interoperable.