I've always subscribed to the idea that too much safety results in too may idiots, and the same is true for all these "safe" programming languages. "Oh I don't have to write any form of bounds-checking, because the language will do it for me."
To add further insult to injury, if the language's bounds checking kicks in first your program may do something worse than just corrupting its own memory. In my experience, apps written in these "safe" languages (usually web apps or bloatware) actually have been the most bug-ridden and bloated. On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 15:54:43 -0500 Daniel Wilkins <t...@parlementum.net> wrote: > And on top of what Theo said: rewriting stuff in "safe" languages doesn't > reduce > the need for mitigations *anyway*. Nobody's rewriting all of the ports tree in > memory safe languages. >
