You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
It doesn't matter how specific your constraints are. Humans make mistakes and violate constraints. By delegating those constraints to the compiler, which only needs to have those constraints encoded once and then apply to all software, you improve the overall code quality.
In other words: you may think you'll never make mistakes, but you will. In assembler, your mistakes turn into exploitable bugs. In Rust, your mistakes don't compile. I'm going with Rust. And if you think you're too experienced to make mistakes, that's how you miss them :-)
You know nothing about my assembly machine coding rules and constraints, like forcing everything coded in FSM's. There are very simple but repetitive, iterative coding rules and constraints that can ensure you will make no mistakes, and if any, that they will be found in a snap.
Any time you're handling variable length data or parsing data structures, you're introducing the possibility of mistakes causing undefined behavior by overflowing a buffer. It doesn't matter what coding style you use.
The thing is that I trust more my own experience, coding technics, tricks, constraints, iterative FSM oriented methodologies, done manually, in assembly language, than any 200 millions lines of code compilers that are impossible to review entirely and backdoored by NSA or CIA.
See, I don't, and that's why I wouldn't hire you :-) I also have a lot of experience writing secure C and assembly, but I am not going to delude myself into thinking I wouldn't wind up with fewer exploitable mistakes in Rust.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
