Almost every "safe" language is itself written in C though. That's the key; use C very minimally for the bottom layer, and then build on top of abstractions. Or write C like LISP; build an inner safe DSL, and then use that. That's been our approach.https://twitter.com/glyph/status/1120524418906824705 …
-
-
It seems like Rust is rapidly becoming a viable alternative for these kinds of applications. Is there a reason to avoid it?
-
rust and we've used it for our Firecracker VMM and other systems softwares. It's probably safer overall, but there's still a tooling gap in terms of code analysis, and we'll be maintaining C things for a long time to come. - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I think a large portion of the discourse surrounding the fatalism of writing C is mainly overton window shifting. I’ll even quibble with the word “fatalism”—I think the industry, as a whole, has been in denial about the danger of C, until _maybe_ the last few months.
-
This isn’t to say that you’re wrong, but the bar for writing safe C is far higher than most think. At the very minimum, it requires a literature review of current methods for checking safety and _likely_ expert consultation.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.