News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Serious Chrome zero-day by gpm on Wednesday March 06, 2019 @06:04PM (#19323910)
It doesn't even have to be memory safe, just less memory accident prone.

D for example would have been an interesting choice (and I think it was usable back then).

Re:Serious Chrome zero-day by kllrnohj on Wednesday March 06, 2019 @06:46PM (#19324178)
D would be interesting but it's also not memory-safe. Not strictly. You can restrict yourself to SafeD, but then you're stuck with a GC you don't really want. Or you can tag all your functions as @Safe, but then it's just a "best practice" and you can't do it everywhere because you can't do things like make system calls.

D has some interesting bits, but it did a lot of head-scratching stuff too. It seemed really confused about what target it was going after, like some middle ground between C#/Java & C/C++ that really doesn't seem to exist.

Re:Serious Chrome zero-day by flukus on Wednesday March 06, 2019 @06:38PM (#19324120)
D was released in 2001, KHTML in 1998, it's like suggesting they should have written vim in java.
Re:Serious Chrome zero-day by jlgaddis on Wednesday March 06, 2019 @06:40PM (#19324138)
... and Chrome in 2008.
Re:Serious Chrome zero-day by jsjohnst on Wednesday March 06, 2019 @07:04PM (#19324305)
Chrome wasn’t written from scratch in 2008. Chrome was a fork of WebKit, which was a fork of Konqueror, which was a fork of KHTML.
Re:Serious Chrome zero-day by kolme on Wednesday March 06, 2019 @07:33PM (#19324521)
KHTML is the rendering engine for the Konqueror browser. Webkit is a fork of KHTML. And Chrome's engine is called Blink (it used to be Webkit, but they forked it).