News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Getting Past C by scott_karana on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @09:25PM (#13315187)
Hate to tell you, but JavaScript implementations virtually all rely on C or C++ as well.

And it's not limited to the VM itself: check out npm "native extensions" like `json`. Not to mention glibc, or the OSes themselves.

By your definition, nothing is safe. And you're right ;)

Re:Getting Past C by MaulingMonkey on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @12:01AM (#13315807)
I'm aware.

I note that Firefox is using some Rust code now - so perhaps that will change at some point, for at least one of the common JavaScript implementations, in the not too distant future. I don't imagine we'll see it for the majority within the decade - but who knows, maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

I have less hope for the widespread adoption of OS kernels written in safer languages - given the general unwillingness to even use C++ there (although plenty of toy/'research' kernels in safer languages do exist.) Although maybe we'll see one within the next century? Perhaps a microkernel for use in containers?

Of course, that still leaves bugs in the JITs, compilers, hardware, 'legacy' native interop, unsafe{} blocks, ...

Re:Getting Past C by rat87 on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @08:14AM (#13317953)
> I note that Firefox is using some Rust code now - so perhaps that will change at some point, for at least one of the common JavaScript implementations, in the not too distant future. I don't imagine we'll see it for the majority within the decade - but who knows, maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Maybe

I think currently there's no plan for it. Maybe after they finish servo to the degree where it supports all modern html features

Re:Getting Past C by pjmlp on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @12:49AM (#13315968)
Historical accident, given that the better alternatives, for various reasons lost their market share to C and C++, while Sun and Microsoft had the dumb idea of not supporting the same AOT compilation to native code on their new languages from day one.
Re:Getting Past C by MichaelBurge on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @09:51PM (#13315290)
That's the old "formal proofs are useless because the proof checker might have a bug" argument. It's not very persuasive.
Re:Getting Past C by scott_karana on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @10:06PM (#13315351)
It's MaulingMonkey's argument ad absurdum is what is is :P