undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbobba272y ago0 comments

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

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.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

marcus0x622y ago· 2 in thread

> 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-...

hgs32y 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.

ttfkam2y ago

Zig. It's not as safe as Rust, but it's a hell of a lot better than C while remaining largely interoperable.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse