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?

  • BaardFigur@lemmy.world
    2·
    9 months ago

    Nothing, and certainly not Rust, is “perfectly” memory safe.

    I agree, which is one of the reasons I think it’s a stupid rule to put in place, to begin with. A lot of so called memory safe languages are just built on top of C anyways (which is not considered memory safe).

    Granted, it’d be far harder for, say, Ruby to meet those proofs than a language like Rust, but the critical point is to have a defined standard of “good enough” for languages to work towards.

    True, but that’s what the industry is already aiming for anyways. But vulnerabilities won’t stop happening any time soon