Yet another article misleadingly treating C and C++ both as memory-unsafe languages. But there is a huge difference between them. Modern C++ code written according to strict standards (like C++ core guidelines) is much less vulnerable in comparison to C code or old-style C++ code. So in practice it may be enough to write in C++ a modern way to avoid vulnerabilities or at least greatly minimize them. Adopting a new memory-safe language may be much more harder, especially in large existing codebases.
And strictly speaking Rust isn't memory-safe, since it allows to shot the leg via unsafe blocks.
Isn't this a variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy? You are saying if you write it write right, you will have little to no memory issues. Arguably, this applies to any memory unsafe language
> Consider Rust.
What about advertising actual memory safe languages instead. https://github.com/Speykious/cve-rs
https://www.abetterinternet.org/
https://www.abetterinternet.org/about/
https://www.memorysafety.org/
Saw this via a chain of links starting from the Let's Encrypt site.
Yet another article misleadingly treating C and C++ both as memory-unsafe languages. But there is a huge difference between them. Modern C++ code written according to strict standards (like C++ core guidelines) is much less vulnerable in comparison to C code or old-style C++ code. So in practice it may be enough to write in C++ a modern way to avoid vulnerabilities or at least greatly minimize them. Adopting a new memory-safe language may be much more harder, especially in large existing codebases.
And strictly speaking Rust isn't memory-safe, since it allows to shot the leg via unsafe blocks.
Isn't this a variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy? You are saying if you write it write right, you will have little to no memory issues. Arguably, this applies to any memory unsafe language