I have written systems in memory safe languages. The languages that provide memory safety also incur GC pauses, which means they’re unsuitable for applications where latency matters at all. (I’ve also noticed that programs written by professionals in memory safe languages tend to have many more serious high-level bugs than those written in C/C++, but I don’t have data to back that up.)
This is incorrect, you can have memory safety without a gc. An example is Ada, and more recently Rust.
Not really. RC algorithms can lead to stop the world in cascade deletion of highly nested data structures, and even cause stack overflow due to destructors being called.
Kinda sorta cheating. ;)
No. It's the inverse. People who are very good with C continue to have vulnerabilities in their code. Why? Because C.
https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/opmemc-1/memor...
Apparently reviewing code before merging into mainline isn't of much help, but lets keep this myth of secure C code alive.
Σ (Logic errors in safe language) < Σ(Logic errors in C + Memory Corruption in C)
There is a world between every single string, array and numeric operation being a possible source of memory corruption and being forced to explicitly write unsafe code.
I have been using mostly safe languages since the 80's.
They only get in the way of cowboy programming, which is a very good thing for anyone that praises quality in software development.
C would no longer be around if companies got properly sued for each CVE exploit.