Memory safe languages tend to be easier to use and to learn especially at lower skill levels with languages like Python and JavaScript. It’s a nice thought, but the White House encouraging memory safety seems like a relatively insignificant push. It’s the weight of legacy code and established solutions that will hold us back for a long time.
It’s a nice thought, but the White House encouraging
memory safety seems like a relatively insignificant push. It’s the
weight of legacy code and established solutions that will hold us back
for a long time.
Absolutely. Memory-safe languages have been around for decades. The
reason there is so much poor code - including ones with manual memory
management bugs - out there is not a technical problem. There are
hordes and hordes of programmers, managers, companies etc. who would
love to get paid to port this stuff. They’ll do it for 10% of the
price those stupid lumbering tech consultancies do it for.
But who gets the contracts in the end?
Give me a f’ing break!
Seriously, a good policy to actually press this issue would be to offer financial incentives to modernize code bases since the cost to replace those old COBOL files is usually the key deterrent
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programming@programming.dev
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person’s post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you’re posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don’t want to watch videos
Memory safe languages tend to be easier to use and to learn especially at lower skill levels with languages like Python and JavaScript. It’s a nice thought, but the White House encouraging memory safety seems like a relatively insignificant push. It’s the weight of legacy code and established solutions that will hold us back for a long time.
Absolutely. Memory-safe languages have been around for decades. The reason there is so much poor code - including ones with manual memory management bugs - out there is not a technical problem. There are hordes and hordes of programmers, managers, companies etc. who would love to get paid to port this stuff. They’ll do it for 10% of the price those stupid lumbering tech consultancies do it for.
But who gets the contracts in the end? Give me a f’ing break!
Seriously, a good policy to actually press this issue would be to offer financial incentives to modernize code bases since the cost to replace those old COBOL files is usually the key deterrent