Peter Duffy said on Mon, 23 Mar 2026 19:49:22 +0000

>Maybe memory safety is actually not a property of the language or the
>program - but of the programmer?
>
>Most languages have features which can be very useful, but which can
>also be dangerous if misused, either carelessly or deliberately
>(pointer arithmetic in C is only one example). The onus is on the
>programmer being skilled and diligent enough to use the features
>safely.

In other words, only the ultra-careful need apply for a programming
position.

Roads shouldn't have reflective lane markers, because the onus is on the
driver being skilled and diligent enough to use the road safely. Stairs
shouldn't have banisters, because the onus is on the user being skilled
and diligent enough to use the stairs safely. Public bathrooms shouldn't
have locks, because the onus is on the person seeking entry being
skilled and diligent enough to knock before attempting to enter.

But even more important, no regardless of who has onus and who fulfills
their onus, a lot of dangerous memory errors are being produced by
programmers. The problem is so bad that now many are calling for
programmers to be licensed like Professional Engineers. If protecting
people from their own mistakes can lessen these kinds of problems and
reduce the obscene call for mandatory licensing of programmers, I'm all
for it.

And because I'm not very careful, I welcome languages like Rust and
Ada, or even Pascal.

SteveT

Steve Litt

http://444domains.com