Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2024 16:11:40 -0500 From: Kyle Evans <kevans@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The Case for Rust (in any system) Message-ID: <49239d9a-aece-4b6b-b896-d7b4899149fc@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAOtMX2iCNX5OkdeghnbmcMrO0UYWwm4zfxFSZGznOznu%2Bmh5rA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAOtMX2iCNX5OkdeghnbmcMrO0UYWwm4zfxFSZGznOznu%2Bmh5rA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/5/24 13:09, Alan Somers wrote: > By now I expect that most of you have seen the long list of new > security advisories that just came out. Strikingly, all were the > result of memory handling errors. And none of them wouldn't have > happened if their respective programs had been written in a > memory-safe language. > > In fact, of all the C bug fixes that I've been involved with (as > either author or reviewer) since May, about three quarters could've > been avoided just by using a better language. > > The real takeaway here is that C is no longer sufficient for writing > high quality code in the 2020s. Everyone needs to adapt their tools. > Programmers who don't will increasingly come to resemble experimental > archaeologists, i.e. people who learn flintknapping to "keep the > knowledge alive". Such people are valuable, but definitely niche. I > for one don't want my career to go in that trajectory. > > To summarize, here's the list of this week's security advisories, and > also some other recent C bug fixes of my own involvement: > [... snip ...] If even half of the energy that has gone into these threads would've been spent on a proof-of-concept rust-xtoolchain implementation with some motivating cases instead, we'd be in a lot better place to actually have these conversations. Thanks, Kyle Evans
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49239d9a-aece-4b6b-b896-d7b4899149fc>