4 ms·

It might prevent 70%[0] or so of exploitable bugs. Which is better than C++, which, after almost 40 years of effort, continues to be the source of most of that

It might prevent 70%[0] or so of exploitable bugs. Which is better than C++, which, after almost 40 years of effort, continues to be the source of most of that 70% in the first place. 0 - https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-70-percent-of-all-security-bugs-are-memory-safety-issues/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-70-percent-of-all-se...

Xeamek 2y ago
That's really great that you are quoting a generalized stat, but we are taking about browsers here, which are inherently runtimes allowing anyone to run anycode they want. Just saying 'c++ bad' isn't really a serious analysis...
- timeon 2y ago
  Are you suggesting that decreasing surface area is not worth it?
  - Xeamek 2y ago
    I am saying that 'crossing someone out' just because they decided not to opt into the tradeoff to decrease that surface is overreacting.
  - torstenvl 2y ago
    If you think it's worth it, feel free to go and do it. But that's not a reason to astroturf for Rust on a thread about Ladybird.
- marcus0x62 2y ago
  Saying that super complex C++ code bases are less exposed to memory safety issues is what is not a serious argument. Have a nice day. Edit: here's a report from the Chromium team, if that makes you feel any better. It reports similar figures. https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/memory-safety/ https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/memory-safet...