7 ms·
70% sounds a bit high but I can accept it. You can do a lot in regards to memory safety also in C / C++ : https://llvm.org/pubs/2006-05-24-SAFECode-BoundsCheck
by bobba27 3y ago
70% sounds a bit high but I can accept it.
You can do a lot in regards to memory safety also in C / C++ :
https://llvm.org/pubs/2006-05-24-SAFECode-BoundsCheck.pdf https://llvm.org/pubs/2006-05-24-SAFECode-BoundsCheck.pdf
Anyway. Writing safe code in C is HARD but possible. Especially with good tooling.
That is not to say everyone should use C. C is an exceptionally hard language to use
safely and correctly and is not for everyone.
- marcus0x62 3y ago> 70% sounds a bit high but I can accept it One meta-source for this is Prossimo[0]. They link to multiple vendor reports that range from 60 - 90%. > Writing safe code in C is HARD but possible. Especially with good tooling. I don’t disagree in theory, but I think it is so hard as to be impractical in almost every case. So, other than maintaining a legacy code base, why try at this point when other options are available? 0 - https://www.memorysafety.org/docs/memory-safety/#how-common-are-memory-safety-vulnerabilities https://www.memorysafety.org/docs/memory-safety/#how-common-...
- hgs3 3y ago> So, other than maintaining a legacy code base, why try at this point when other options are available? What options would you recommend in 2024? I write C (not C++) and work on projects that are inherently memory unsafe (the last one required hand-written assembly code). I've explored potential C successors in the past, but have yet to discover one that matches the freedoms, simplicity, ergonomics, and performance of the C language.
- ttfkam 2y agoZig. It's not as safe as Rust, but it's a hell of a lot better than C while remaining largely interoperable.