Steve Litt <slitt@???> writes:
> 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.

I think this misses the point: Every useful device can be abused or be
used wrongly and humans are really good at getting everything wrong they
possibly can. In a hypothetical universe where all software must be
written in Rust, all security problem will also be written in
Rust. Humans will manage to do that.

See also "SQL injection" and "supply chain attacks."