Hello Steve

> We could debate the benefits and costs of adherence to this degree of
> diligence, but the fact is that a lot of bad code gets written,
> damaging society and the programming profession. At some time in the
> future you, a diligent programmer, might find yourself hamstrung by
> actual laws requiring you to jump through all sorts of hoops (or pay
> lots of bribes) to be allowed to ply your trade.

I think you have made this argument before, that we require safe
languages (or "safer languages") lest the state imposes a
license to program. I am not sure...

I think the opposite can be argued too: That unsafe languages
are useful, so that the powerful can't (de facto, technically) prevent
you from rooting your device to to run your own code, however
rubbish, and even if that is against the law, or the eula.

I think the "software needs engineering certs" concern is
being elbowed out by "software should be written by AI" issue,
and it is unclear in which direction this issue will go.
It could be that best engineering (ewww) practices will require everyone
to use an agent, or perhaps after some disaster things will swing
the other way.

But in the mean time, preserving access to one's devices should
remain a priority. And the occasional buffer overflow can
help in that regard. Especially as corporations often
value quality less than enthusiasts, and so the scale
is tipped in favour of the latter.

regards

marc