Re:Mitigating Memory Safety Issues in Open Source Software
by tptacek on Friday February 19, 2021 @02:22PM
(#26196897)
I'm not making a value judgement. I prefer GC'd languages. I'm saying: if they're not GC'd now, when there are multiple excellent choices for managed-runtime languages, it ain't gonna be GC'd. And obviously, it's not going to be C++.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Mitigating Memory Safety Issues in Open Source Software
by pjmlp on Saturday February 20, 2021 @06:38AM
(#26203422)
Ok there I agree with you, however in some domains the choice is made by who is calling the shots and not due the technical merits of some sorts.
Windows is a good example of this politics game actually.
Joe Duffy mentioned on his Rustconf keynote that even with the system running in production, the Windows team couldn't be argued against.
A system that even powered parts of Asian Bing infrastructure.
Likewise they clearly sabotaged the Longhorn efforts, to replace them with COM, and yet UWP, mostly written in C++, happens to usually run slower than traditional .NET applications on Win32, or any other compiled GC'd language on Windows for that matter.