> So unlike a few `unsafe` in a safe Rust, I want something like a few "safe" in an ambient "unsafe" C dialect. But I'm not saying "unsafe" is good or bad, I'm saying that "don't talk about unsafe vs safe", it's C itself, you wouldn't say anything is "safe" or "unsafe" in C.
Eh?
The critical criterion is "does your language make it difficult to write accidental RCEs". There's huge resistance to changing language at all, as we can see from the kernel mailing lists, so in order to go through the huge social pain of encouraging people to use a different language it's got to offer real and significant benefits.
Lifetimes are a solution to memory leaks and use-after free. Other solutions may exist.
Generics: Go tried to resist generics. It was a mistake. You need to be able to do Container<T> somehow. Do you have an opinion on the dotnet version of generics?
(You mention Ceph: every time I read about it I'm impressed, in that it seems an excellent solution to distributed filesystems, and yet I don't see it mentioned all that often. I'm glad it's survived)
Eh?
The critical criterion is "does your language make it difficult to write accidental RCEs". There's huge resistance to changing language at all, as we can see from the kernel mailing lists, so in order to go through the huge social pain of encouraging people to use a different language it's got to offer real and significant benefits.
Lifetimes are a solution to memory leaks and use-after free. Other solutions may exist.
Generics: Go tried to resist generics. It was a mistake. You need to be able to do Container<T> somehow. Do you have an opinion on the dotnet version of generics?
(You mention Ceph: every time I read about it I'm impressed, in that it seems an excellent solution to distributed filesystems, and yet I don't see it mentioned all that often. I'm glad it's survived)