This just in: Rust is useless because everyone who can write Rust already writes safe C code. I guess I’ve just been imagining every browser vulnerability of the last decade then.pic.twitter.com/HiqXvhIcaT
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
Say what you will about Chrome, Firefox, the Windows kernel, Linux, nginx, SQLite, OpenSSL, Android, iOS, etc.: the main developers of those projects are excellent programmers and it’s ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
Ok ok give that strawman a break :) The remaining questions are (1) is Rust (or Swift/Go) actually practical for writing what we currently use C for, and (2) is said Rust-written replacement actually safer?
1) Rust is. Swift and Go are less applicable because you can't really write libraries in Swift/Go for use by arbitrary (e.g. C) applications. 2) Absolutely. Compare the security impact of fuzz bugs: https://github.com/rust-fuzz/trophy-case … vs http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/afl/#bugs
The places where it isn't the people highly skilled in secure coding writing the C are where you get a dozen times more horrors- drivers, embedded, and older software the biggest ones.
There is no relation on "being a good or bad sofware developer" and "the programming language they deploy".
I speculate that Key reason why people stick to C/C++ is that calling windows APIs and loading various DLLs doesn’t work.
In other words, the people write the most code tend to be the people who write the most code. The most prolific writers aren't necessarily the best, although you'd expect them to have the most practice. Nothing says they have the best practice.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.