On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:24:52 +0100 Nicolas Schmidt <schmi...@math.hu-berlin.de> wrote:
> So they wrote a program that was a) shitty and b) memory-safe? Those are two > orthogonal dimensions. Also, the anecdotal evidence that safe languages > attract bad programmers does not imply that using safe languages is bad: a > good programmer won't suddenly commit such atrocities as you mentioned, just > because they use a safe language. A good programmer won't even need these languages in the first place. Case in point, the entire OpenBSD dev team. :) > Finally, your example probably speaks more about business practices than > about safe programming languages. If you want to compare Java to a > non-memory-safe language, you should compare it to one that is also designed > *for* (instead of *by*) programmers, like Cobol. It goes back to the point I make though, that these languages encourage this kind of behavior by promoting a false sense of security, hence complacency.
