There's literally hundreds of research papers on the subject from which Rust was based on -- and now many are written about Rust.
Languages have to be designed around static code analysis from the beginning. There are many language concepts that make reliable analysis possible.
Conversation
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
I gave you an answer. There's an entire body of research on static code analysis, and that C and C++ lack the necessary syntax to make it viable in practice. Do some searching on Rust. You can start with the Cyclone papers, through which lifetimes came: cyclone.thelanguage.org/wiki/Papers/
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
I'm baffled. The entire point of research papers are to provide evidence supporting their hypothesis that were proposed in them, of which propose precisely that. What more do you want? What you're doing here is disingenuous.
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
The Cyclone papers I gave you were evidence of precisely that. C lacks the syntax to guarantee that borrowed references are valid, but through extending C to support annotating references with lifetimes, static analysis could make guarantees about the lifetimes of their data.
1
2
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
My entire point is that static analysis works much better when it's supported by the type system / language. External static analysis is greatly enhanced by a language providing stronger static guarantees that making code easier to analyze. It's easy to think about and evaluate.
2
1
You haven't even trying to debate anything based on the merits and instead just keep misrepresenting my statements. The strawman arguments and attempts to waste people's time are tiring. You have no intent to have a productive conversation. It's obnoxious trolling at this point.