2 ms·
From this, I think we probably just mostly read the piece differently, and you probably read it more carefully than I did. (I know your background in this space
by tptacek 1y ago
From this, I think we probably just mostly read the piece differently, and you probably read it more carefully than I did. (I know your background in this space).
I'm always a little guarded about message board definitions of "memory safety", because they tend to be axiomatically derived from the words "memory" and "safety", and they tend to have an objective of saying that there's only one mainstream language that provides memory safety.
- pizlonator 1y ago> and they tend to have an objective of saying that there's only one mainstream language that provides memory safety. Yeah! I agree it's hard to do it without some kind of axioms or circularity, but it's also important to get the definition right, because at some point, we'll need to be able to objectively say whether some piece of critical software is memory safe, or not. So we have to keep trying to find a good definition. I think that means rejecting the bad definitions.