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?
I’m just glad to see the White House listening to people who understand technology for a change.
This admin honestly has been consistently doing so IMHO. Having read a memo that felt like a crock of shit yet, except for maybe the unfunded nature of some of the demands.
I feel this is a bit of a moot point from the White House. Memory-safe languages have been around for decades. I feel like the amount of C/C++ out there isn’t so much that people think having dangerous stuff around is good, but more that nobody really wants to pay to change it.
deleted by creator
You don’t have to ban C or C++; you just have to prove your programs are memory safe. It’s been decades since I’ve coded in C, but surely Valgrind and ilk are now capable of providing reasonable proof of memory safety. You might have to turn up all the dials and set all-warnings-are-errors, but I’d be surprised if C tooling wasn’t available to provide sufficient proof for a given statically-linked program.
Be prepared to be surprised then. If such tooling was available, why isn’t it being used by the projects for whom it matters? Yes, there is tooling available, but all the big parties using them are admitting it’s not good enough for them. Those tools help, but they do fail in the “sufficient proof” department.
For some follow-up reading:
They all share the same basic facts: C and C++ are inherently memory unsafe. If any of them could’ve “just prove[n] your programs are memory safe”, I think they would have.
Oh, my dear, sweet, summer child. Welcome to capitalism, and the rule of “good enough.” Static code analysis tools cost money, and take time to run. I’ve yet to work at a company that didn’t have a documented process for entirely bypassing QA in urgent situations; although, when I contracted with the USFS, they were much more reluctant to cut corners - that was under a Democrat president; when Republicans took charge, they cut a lot of things, including software quality controls.
But - as I said - I haven’t touched C in decades, so I can’t refute your claim that such tools don’t exist.
deleted by creator
Nothing, and certainly not Rust, is “perfectly” memory safe. You get closer with Haskell. At some point, you define what “good enough” is, and it’s up to languages to provide tooling to either meet those standards (and be approved), or don’t.
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.
deleted by creator
I want Lemmy to have reactions, so I do’t have to clutter the thread just to say: 🤝