Besides, a memory-safe C dialect isn't nearly enough. A lot (maybe most?) of critical unsafe code is C++. "But C++ can compile to C!" That doesn't imply C++ can automatically compile to your new C dialect. In fact it's very unlikely it will.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's possible to make a memory-safe C *implementation*, not dialect. Costly, but not impossible, and a lot less expensive than rewriting everything.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Even if you could wave a magic wand and make C memory-safe I still wouldn't want to write it because it sucks as a language and an ecosystem.
-
OK, but some of us have exactly the opposite view: that all the alternatives suck as languages and as ecosystems (especially the whole microdependency hell and language-blessed package/dependency manager systems).
- 10 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The issue is that many C programmers don't consider things like a simple type system to be a problem.
-
Those programmers aren't people who need answered seriously.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Are you familiar with the formally verified CompCert C compiler? http://compcert.inria.fr/compcert-C.html It's used somewhat by the airplane industry and other similar places with mission- or life-critical infrastructure, and it verifies memory safety and compilation correctness both.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.