Re:Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data struc...
by rowanG077 on Wednesday May 04, 2022 @10:59AM
(#31261418)
I'm not sure what your point is. I didn't claim memory unsafe languages aren't used, they obviously are. C is in fact not an easy language to verify. There have gone trillions of dollars into that and it's still not solved. You can't verify C. You might be able to verify a subset of C. But if you are in any position to choose any other language you should run, run, run quickly and far away from C.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data struc...
by flyingfences on Wednesday May 04, 2022 @11:28AM
(#31261856)
My point is that your metaphor about "not [being] allowed to use memory unsafe languages" to build a car is completely backwards -- safety-critical embedded systems use C to avoid the abstractions introduced by higher-level languages.
Re:Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data struc...
by rowanG077 on Wednesday May 04, 2022 @11:46AM
(#31262105)
It's not backwards. C is used out of necessity not because it's such a great language. Safety-critical embedded systems use C because they have to. Not because it's nice. Claiming they do because C is such a great language to write safety-critical software in is a special kind of Stockholm syndrome.