88

Rust lobbyists winning

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Owl@hexbear.net 28 points 1 year ago

Which do you think happened?

  • Honest appraisal of C++ security problems

  • They figured out some security hole in C++ programs that makes them even worse than we thought

  • Some contractor bribed them to say this so that they can get contracts porting stuff to Rust

  • Some contractor dug up new legitimate security holes in C++ programs so they can convince the FBI to say this so they can get contracts porting stuff to Rust

  • High ranking FBI officials are rust fanboys

I think contractor bribes, but I think that last two are fun.

[-] SkingradGuard@hexbear.net 25 points 1 year ago

All wrong! It's because Rust is WOKE!

[-] pinguinu@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 1 year ago

Thank god President Trump will revert everything to C, none of this woke stuff, Make Software Spaghetti Again!

[-] lil_tank@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago

C is for liberals, real patriots use Assembly trump-drenched

[-] someone@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

Make Software Spaghetti Again!

Got you covered.

[-] blobjim@hexbear.net 18 points 1 year ago

It's just the obvious thing. C and C++ don't have safeguards against dangerous programming mistakes. Programming languages exist that do. There are to this day still software vulnerabilities being caused by subtly incorrect code that C and C++ require being treated as legitimate.

[-] brainw0rms@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago

C and C++ don't have safeguards against dangerous programming mistakes.

This is not really true for modern C++... and if you're talking about code bases that use an ancient dialect of C++ where it might be true, the fantasy of even having the option of porting to Rust is actually pretty laughable. C will continue to be necessary for many critical things because there simply isn't sufficient compiler support coverage for Rust to take the throne.

[-] sexual_tomato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The difference here is that it takes discipline and training to use only those parts of C++. That requires humans in the loop to enforce those decisions. Humans are fallible.

If you make it impossible at the language level then there's nothing to train. You just can't do the thing unintentionally.

And they didn't specify Rust; the aerospace industry has been using Ada for decades when it comes to mission critical stuff. Ada's compiler has long had a similar notoriety to rust's regarding the difficulty curve.

[-] smpl@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 year ago

My guess would also be that most enterprises prefer Ada over Rust, because Rust lack standardisation. Sometimes you need to do unsafe things though and your billion dollar rocket explode.

this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
88 points (100.0% liked)

technology

24254 readers
336 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS