Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ada people scratching their heads....
How many of them are left? I thought it was very much a dead language
The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
141–150 of 427 posts
Re: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
People figured out how to build buildings prior to creating building codes
And many buildings were built deliberately poorly to make a quick buck - or caught fire too easily or fell down in minor earthquakes (or worse damage other property/people). Peoples homes are a major financial commitment and can ruin people if they're not up to scratch. The regulations are to ensure the 10% of bad builders/developers don't ruin peoples lives.
Re: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh boy... Nothing is mandated here. These are just suggestions from experts. Don't take them if you don't want to.
wait for gov contract projects mandate them in the fine prints, it's a signal that is serious enough for anyone interested in doing any software-related business with gov, for them, this is nearly the same as 'mandated'
Re: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
#144I advise training programmers instead of throwing them in front of a screen without any training. Companies these days provides no training at all. When I was hired over 40 years ago, I spent plenty of time being trained for my first 3 months. Now, nothing, and you if you want to train a new person, you do it on your own time.
Re: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
#145I advise training programmers instead of throwing them in front of a screen without any training. Companies these days provides no training at all. When I was hired over 40 years ago, I spent plenty of time being trained for my first 3 months. Now, nothing, and you if you want to train a new person, you do it on your own time.
Re: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Really, the only memory unsafe languages still in use are C and C++. Ada, Fortran, assembly?
Fortran doesn’t even have dynamic memory allocation, so it’s inherently safe.
Re: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
#147I advise training programmers instead of throwing them in front of a screen without any training. Companies these days provides no training at all. When I was hired over 40 years ago, I spent plenty of time being trained for my first 3 months. Now, nothing, and you if you want to train a new person, you do it on your own time.
Re: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
#148Re: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Commenting bc I had the same question. My impression of historical Python is that is an old, partially arcane language that due to D.S/AI is now popular; I would initially think it would be no better than those other interpreted. Python does these things well... mainly due to pandas/dataframes/polars.
Language wise, Python is basically just Perl with its arms cut off and bunch of makeup added. It's just very popular in the scientific community, so they have to add it.
Re: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
#150Their "Appendix: Memory Safe Languages" lists: C#, Go, Java, Python, Rust & Swift
It's unfortunate that there's no mention that not all these languages are equally safe. Go isn't memory safe when using goroutines. See: Golang data races to break memory safety: https://blog.stalkr.net/2015/04/golang-data-races-to-break-m...
* many GC'd languages like Go, C#, Java make it harder to leak memory, while languages where reference counting is more prevalent (Python, Rust) it can be easier to leak memory due to circular references.
* Languages with VMs like C#/Java/Python may be easier to sandbox or execute securely, but since native code is often called into it breaks the sandboxing nature.
* Formally-verified C code (like what aerospace manufacturers write) is safer than e.g. Rust.
* For maximum safety, sandboxing becomes important - so WASM begins to look appealing for non-safety-critical systems (like aerospace) as it allows for applying memory/CPU constraints too in addition to restricting all system access.