This voluntary guidance provides an overview of product security bad practices that are deemed exceptionally risky, particularly for software manufacturers who produce software used in service of critical infrastructure or national critical functions (NCFs).
I’m not sure if you’re making a real point or if it’s something you heard is complicated but never looked into why. You almost never actually write a linked list. There are usually way easier ways to have a potentially infinite list, but more often you will write your code to operate on blocks of arrays of known size for performance reasons (cache locality, etc) or safety reasons (memory exhaustion, etc), or the linked list is hidden away in a queue implementation (which again you usually want to make bounded).
Most C++ programmers don’t actually understand lifetimes or even basic memory safety.
Most programmers don’t know when they should be using a linked list or something more cache-friendly.
Most software is really bad.
If I can get away with it, I’ll bang something out in Python or whatever I’m required to do something in for the task at hand, and I’ll absolutely know 10 ways my program can break, but if I need speed AND reliability, it necessarily takes effort from me, the programmer, to tell the computer exactly how it has to go down. And then Rust usually lets me say what I want to say.
I interpreted your comment as being dismissive of understanding basic memory safety because no jobs care about this.
I thought it ridiculous that people don’t care that their programs explode. I guess it changes your mindset when your service going down isn’t a matter of costing the company money, but affecting real people.
I was being serious. I offhandedly expressed some excitement, in a comment I forgot I even wrote, about interviewing at a place that writes modern c++. Which, if you don’t know, c++11 and especially beyond has features to manage lifetimes, ownership, memory, and other important things just as Rust does (but it’s still C++, so of course it has all the baggage C++ must carry and a compiler that doesn’t enforce any of this).
But you rushed at the opportunity to be a complete ass about it and insult me for no reason. Presumably you also dismissively assumed I’ve never written Rust. Or that in 2024 the Rust jobs are so overflowing that I can just take my pick at one at my own leisure. As if my first preference is to write software in a language that still requires forward declarations.
Yeah. You had such a good point, though. I really would rather not have an income in favor of writing perfectly memory safe software that nobody uses. Surely you have advice on that?
Sorry about the friendly fire then, I guess. You seem to realize that in C++ you still have to think about lifetimes, only the compiler doesn’t really hold your hand. I thought you were the ASSHOLE who dismissively declared that Rust programmers don’t know how to write a linked list, without realizing that the problem is that C++ programmers usually don’t know how to write C++ either. And that’s why everything is on fire.
But you had to make more presumptions about my assumptions, and throw in a “nobody uses” because you genuinely have no idea how much my software is used, lol. So long as it keeps humming along you’ll never have to.
You’re god damn right I am. But my patience for trying to bring people up to my level has more than worn thin because of arrogant thought terminators like I originally responded to.
I’m not sure if you’re making a real point or if it’s something you heard is complicated but never looked into why. You almost never actually write a linked list. There are usually way easier ways to have a potentially infinite list, but more often you will write your code to operate on blocks of arrays of known size for performance reasons (cache locality, etc) or safety reasons (memory exhaustion, etc), or the linked list is hidden away in a queue implementation (which again you usually want to make bounded).
Most C++ programmers don’t actually understand lifetimes or even basic memory safety.
Most programmers don’t know when they should be using a linked list or something more cache-friendly.
Most software is really bad.
If I can get away with it, I’ll bang something out in Python or whatever I’m required to do something in for the task at hand, and I’ll absolutely know 10 ways my program can break, but if I need speed AND reliability, it necessarily takes effort from me, the programmer, to tell the computer exactly how it has to go down. And then Rust usually lets me say what I want to say.
Fingers crossed I get this job I’m applying for where they actually care about this.
oh okay you’re actually stupid
wow
I am blown away that even in a socialist space people like you are obsessed with employment, and not with whether your program actually functions.
excuse me?
I interpreted your comment as being dismissive of understanding basic memory safety because no jobs care about this.
I thought it ridiculous that people don’t care that their programs explode. I guess it changes your mindset when your service going down isn’t a matter of costing the company money, but affecting real people.
But maybe you weren’t being sarcastic?
I was being serious. I offhandedly expressed some excitement, in a comment I forgot I even wrote, about interviewing at a place that writes modern c++. Which, if you don’t know, c++11 and especially beyond has features to manage lifetimes, ownership, memory, and other important things just as Rust does (but it’s still C++, so of course it has all the baggage C++ must carry and a compiler that doesn’t enforce any of this).
But you rushed at the opportunity to be a complete ass about it and insult me for no reason. Presumably you also dismissively assumed I’ve never written Rust. Or that in 2024 the Rust jobs are so overflowing that I can just take my pick at one at my own leisure. As if my first preference is to write software in a language that still requires forward declarations.
Yeah. You had such a good point, though. I really would rather not have an income in favor of writing perfectly memory safe software that nobody uses. Surely you have advice on that?
Sorry about the friendly fire then, I guess. You seem to realize that in C++ you still have to think about lifetimes, only the compiler doesn’t really hold your hand. I thought you were the ASSHOLE who dismissively declared that Rust programmers don’t know how to write a linked list, without realizing that the problem is that C++ programmers usually don’t know how to write C++ either. And that’s why everything is on fire.
But you had to make more presumptions about my assumptions, and throw in a “nobody uses” because you genuinely have no idea how much my software is used, lol. So long as it keeps humming along you’ll never have to.
No, I get it. You’re God’s gifts to computers. Carry on.
You’re god damn right I am. But my patience for trying to bring people up to my level has more than worn thin because of arrogant thought terminators like I originally responded to.