3 ms·

"The alternative languages" - in this case you're talking about C, 99% of the time. So let's talk about that. Well written C code, especially for the purpose o

by sgt 6mo ago

"The alternative languages" - in this case you're talking about C, 99% of the time. So let's talk about that. Well written C code, especially for the purpose of writing and continuing to maintain mature GNU coreutils, is not a big risk in terms of CVE. Between having an inexperienced Rust developer and an extremely experienced C developer (who's been through all the motions), I'd say the latter is likely the safer option.

geocar 6mo ago
100% it's the safer option. The software with the best security track record of all time is written in C.
- sgt 6mo ago
  I would maybe not go that far, look at ADA, SPARK etc.
- foobar1274278 6mo ago
  I'm curious which software you have in mind. Ex: seL4 is technically C, but I'd say the theorem prover is doing most of the real work there.
  - geocar 6mo ago
    Specifically? I'm thinking of qmail. qmail was at one point the second most widely deployed email server, handling the majority of online mail. It wasn't a research project; it's not obscure. Yahoo used to use it. And what I mean by track record: After more than a decade after the last published version, a theoretical attack was found requiring special setup uncommon for a sysadmin, and impossible ten years prior. When anyone thinks about how to build reliable secure software, I think they should be thinking of qmail because it really has no public source-available equal, except maybe djbdns. seL4 on the other hand makes some specious claims about some ten year old version of itself, and so few people have even heard about it you thought it important to remind it is "technically" C -- qmail isn't like that at all: There is no prover, no test suite, and almost no metaprogramming of any kind. It's just C.
- dvhh 6mo ago
  I would recognize sarcasm when I see it. But statistically, that could be true, considering the amount of C code running ( probably far less than COBOL or FORTRAN ), Compared to the relatively small amount of Rust code vs the amount of faults observed with it.
- slopinthebag 6mo ago
  The software with the worst security track record of all time is also written in C.
slopinthebag 6mo ago
What an incredibly dishonest argument. Obviously "Well written C code" won't be riddled with CVE's by definition, the problem is that since programs written in C are littered with CVE's, it turns out it's really really difficult to write well written C, even for the best developers. With Rust, that entire class of problems is eliminated entirely.
Pay08 6mo ago
> "The alternative languages" - in this case you're talking about C, 99% of the time. And that's part of the problem. There's no excuse beyond maybe platform support for starting a brand new project in C, when C++ exists.

by sgt 6mo ago

geocar 6mo ago

100% it's the safer option. The software with the best security track record of all time is written in C.

sgt 6mo ago
I would maybe not go that far, look at ADA, SPARK etc.
foobar1274278 6mo ago
I'm curious which software you have in mind. Ex: seL4 is technically C, but I'd say the theorem prover is doing most of the real work there.
- geocar 6mo ago
  Specifically? I'm thinking of qmail. qmail was at one point the second most widely deployed email server, handling the majority of online mail. It wasn't a research project; it's not obscure. Yahoo used to use it. And what I mean by track record: After more than a decade after the last published version, a theoretical attack was found requiring special setup uncommon for a sysadmin, and impossible ten years prior. When anyone thinks about how to build reliable secure software, I think they should be thinking of qmail because it really has no public source-available equal, except maybe djbdns. seL4 on the other hand makes some specious claims about some ten year old version of itself, and so few people have even heard about it you thought it important to remind it is "technically" C -- qmail isn't like that at all: There is no prover, no test suite, and almost no metaprogramming of any kind. It's just C.
dvhh 6mo ago
I would recognize sarcasm when I see it. But statistically, that could be true, considering the amount of C code running ( probably far less than COBOL or FORTRAN ), Compared to the relatively small amount of Rust code vs the amount of faults observed with it.
slopinthebag 6mo ago
The software with the worst security track record of all time is also written in C.

slopinthebag 6mo ago

What an incredibly dishonest argument. Obviously "Well written C code" won't be riddled with CVE's by definition, the problem is that since programs written in C are littered with CVE's, it turns out it's really really difficult to write well written C, even for the best developers. With Rust, that entire class of problems is eliminated entirely.

Pay08 6mo ago

> "The alternative languages" - in this case you're talking about C, 99% of the time. And that's part of the problem. There's no excuse beyond maybe platform support for starting a brand new project in C, when C++ exists.