U.S. and International Partners Issue Recommendations to Secure Software Products Through
www.nsa.gov
FORT MEADE, Md. - The National Security Agency (NSA) joins Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and U.S. and international partners in releasing ”The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps”
    • anti-idpol action
      15•1 year ago

      so basically anything without manual memory management. I don’t really see a good point in shilling particular names aside from discussions on performance impact of GC vs VM vs ownership

      • @calcopiritus
        5•1 year ago

        Not really manual memory management. I’d say C++'s memory management is automatic, just not safe.

        Yes, a lot of programming languages are memory safe, maybe it would be faster to list memory unsafe popular languages.

      • @[email protected]
        3•1 year ago

        Sorry, are you saying the NSA’s information sheet shouldn’t have mentioned specific languages? Why not?

    • bruhduh
      1•1 year ago

      Obscure hardware still gotta be supported somehow

        • bruhduh
          2•1 year ago

          That c lang is simplified assembler and it’s not going to leave cause there no better language to support obscure hardware, i mean, nobody gonna write compilers for obscure architectures to rust or c# because everyone have better things to do, but my idea is, there are alot of obscure hardware out there, actively used even now, and i insist that we should not pollute the world but repurpose every tech there is, and c lang have compilers for almost all existing architectures if not all, also there are alot of manuals how to write compilers to c lang so in case you slap some asic together you can make your own compiler and support your hardware, and modern memory safe languages yet to acquire this feature and that is if they plan to do this at all and not abandon obscure hardware (also I agree with you and upvoted your comments but addition was needed)

  • @[email protected]
    1•1 year ago

    I find it amazing that so many are clinging on to C++. It must be that sense of accomplishment when you finally succeed, having solved a bunch of problems on the way. C++ has had so many chances now. Many new standards coming out over the last decade. But the language is hardly simpler, just more to learn. See CoreCppGuidelines. This is what the 2 most prominent people of C++ want developers to learn in order to practice “safe” C++. This doesn’t scale. A language needs to be built from the ground up for developers. Rust has taken a whole new concept and tried to solve memory issues directly with the compiler. Other languages are solving other kinds of issues (for differing kinds of use cases). A language should not put such a burden on the developer.