112
In Rust we trust? White House Office urges memory safety - Stack Overflow
(stackoverflow.blog)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
112 points (96.7% liked)
Programming
16687 readers
158 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Memory safe languages tend to be easier to use and to learn especially at lower skill levels with languages like Python and JavaScript. It's a nice thought, but the White House encouraging memory safety seems like a relatively insignificant push. It's the weight of legacy code and established solutions that will hold us back for a long time.
Seriously, a good policy to actually press this issue would be to offer financial incentives to modernize code bases since the cost to replace those old COBOL files is usually the key deterrent
Absolutely. Memory-safe languages have been around for decades. The reason there is so much poor code - including ones with manual memory management bugs - out there is not a technical problem. There are hordes and hordes of programmers, managers, companies etc. who would love to get paid to port this stuff. They'll do it for 10% of the price those stupid lumbering tech consultancies do it for.
But who gets the contracts in the end? Give me a f'ing break!