TL;DR: It's better to have buffer overflows and use-after-free bugs that still work in 50 years than to have secure code you may need to migrate.
I think you're being sarcastic? But I also think the article genuinely believes that's true. In 50 years there will be C programmers who know how to fix a buffer overflow, compile, and run your program. Conversely, a program written in a language and dependent on a package repository that only existed from 2017-2024 will likely never find an academic willing to invest the thousands of hours in learning that legacy co…
I'm not being at all sarcastic. That's what I read from the article. I never said whether or not I agree with it. From my tone you might guess correctly that I don't.