Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 11:44:04 +0100 From: Borja Marcos <borjam@sarenet.es> To: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@puchar.net> Cc: Antranig Vartanian <antranigv@freebsd.am>, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org>, =?utf-8?Q?Goran_Meki=C4=87?= <meka@tilda.center> Subject: Re: The Case for Rust (in the base system) Message-ID: <B0D209B0-52AE-4BF7-AF2D-C3CBFCF35D1E@sarenet.es> In-Reply-To: <a1a064e5-c968-b57-c87-f9fafac7bf@puchar.net> References: <CAOtMX2hAUiWdGPtpaCJLPZB%2Bj2yzNw5DSjUmkwTi%2B%2BmyemehCA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFF117C-4E6B-4339-8A9A-391ED720C508@freebsd.am> <a1a064e5-c968-b57-c87-f9fafac7bf@puchar.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 31 Jan 2024, at 11:15, Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@puchar.net> wrote: >=20 >> I don=E2=80=99t want to do a what-aboutism, but if all we=E2=80=99re = looking for is a good and >> secure system programming language, the alternatives are nicer. > The is no such thing as secure system programming language. > Security come only from proper programming practices. While I think I agree with the arguments against including Rust, there = are programming languages that make it really hard to manage the possible interactions between components and = hence expose you to security issues.=20 C is the =E2=80=9Crust golden=E2=80=9D example. Complexity can become = unbearable and it can be compared to programming in assembler. ;) Borja.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B0D209B0-52AE-4BF7-AF2D-C3CBFCF35D1E>