PRESS RELEASE: Future Software Should Be Memory Safe | ONCD | The White House
www.whitehouse.gov
Leaders in Industry Support White House Call to Address Root Cause of Many of the Worst Cyber Attacks Read the full report here WASHINGTON – Today, the White House Office of the National Cyber Director (ONCD) released a report calling on the technical community to proactively reduce the attack surface in cyberspace. ONCD makes the…

On the one side I really like c and c++ because they’re fun and have great performance; they don’t feel like your fighting the language and let me feel sort of creative in the way I do things(compared with something like Rust or Swift).

On the other hand, when weighing one’s feelings against the common good, I guess it’s not really a contest. Plus I suspect a lot of my annoyance with languages like rust stems from not being as familiar with the paradigm. What do you all think?

  • words_number@programming.dev
    25·
    10 months ago

    Id say it’s experience by the programmer that is at fault, and that’s due to this bootcamp nature of learning programming.

    You are getting downvoted, because this is factually proven wrong by studies and internal analysis of several huge companies (e.g. google/android and microsoft). A huge number of exploitable bugs are preventable using memory safe languages, nowadays even without performance costs (Rust).

    Apart from that your point is orthogonal to the point of the post. You can have better trained coders and have them use better, safer technologies.

    We could also just train every driver more thoroughly including mental training and meditation to make sure they are more calm and focussed when driving and we maybe wouldn’t need seatbelts anymore. But:

    1. Is that a realistic scenario?
    2. Why not use seatbelts anyway, so there’s a higher chance of not dying if some driver didn’t sleep well that day?