But how are we going to trade stocks in nano seconds without C++?!
The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
31–40 of 427 posts
Re: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
#32I 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
#33[flagged]
Well, fortunately this was obviously a good idea already, and we don't really need to wonder much about their intent.
Re: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on early days of Rust in the Linux kernel, the segmentation of safe and unsafe code can significantly reduce the surface area within a kernel.
What's the uptake of Rust as far as Linux kernel dev goes? Is it being positively welcomed and seeing a rise in usage or is it still at PoC stage? Any ongoing rewrites of important subsystems?
So far 61 files [0], vs 52k for C, so about 0.1%.
[0]: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Atorvalds%2Flinux++languag...
Re: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
#35But how are we going to trade stocks in nano seconds without C++?!
You’re not. C++ isn’t going anywhere in certain industries.
Re: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
#36Their "Appendix: Memory Safe Languages" lists: C#, Go, Java, Python, Rust & Swift
[flagged]
Next thing they'll be giving requirements for people building bridges, houses, and gas and electricity fittings.
Seriously, I think the time has long since passed software needs regulating. It's a major part of modern society, and as far as I'm aware, most people aren't opposed to building standards in principle.
Re: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on early days of Rust in the Linux kernel, the segmentation of safe and unsafe code can significantly reduce the surface area within a kernel.
Do you rewrite the Linux kernel as-is in Rust or try something new? Would/should a Linux in Rust look the same?
As other commenters have said, you can do it a bit at a time, converting non-core kernel code to Rust at the edges. Another route to memory (and other) safety would be the C -> WASM -> C route that effectively rewrites/transpiles code to operate within its own sandbox, which also has the advantage that it could at some later date support modules written in languages other than C.
Re: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
#38At least my usecase has C completely disconnected from the internet. I have no idea how this is going to work at the OS level.
You can shoot yourself in the foot as well. Memory safety isn't just about malicious thirdparty code.
Re: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
#39Their "Appendix: Memory Safe Languages" lists: C#, Go, Java, Python, Rust & Swift
[deleted]
Re: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is ridiculous to equate a recommendation and a mandate.
It is, but it doesn't mean folks won't.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make. You're the person who wrote it would be mandated, and now you're admitting it's a ridiculous position to take.
If you have some point to make please do so earnestly. Layering in levels of irony makes any point you're trying to make difficult to understand or follow, even if labelled with /s.
This is going off-topic, but there is a style of internet arguing that I have come to seriously dislike. It is one where instead of someone making a point, they make the point they wish to detract and simply flag that they are being ironic. In doing so they don't actually advance the point they're trying to make, they assume that the audience already understands and is sympathetic to that point, so they simply put up a target to scoff at.
I'm not sure if that's what you're doing here, or if you're just struggling to make a point about worrying about government intrusion into private business.