| ▲ | quotemstr 16 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
You may define "memory safety" as you like. I will define "trustworthy system" as one in which the author acknowledges and owns limitations instead of iteratively refining private definitions until the limitations disappear. You can define a mathematical notation in which 2+3=9, but I'm under no obligation to accept it, and I'll take the attempt into consideration when evaluating the credibility of proofs in this strange notation. Nobody is trying to hide the existence of "eval" or "unsafe". You're making a categorical claim of safety that's true only under a tendentious reading of common English words. Users reading your claims will come away with a mistaken faith in your system's guarantees. Let us each invest according to our definitions. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | pizlonator 7 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> I will define "trustworthy system" as one in which the author acknowledges and owns limitations instead of iteratively refining private definitions until the limitations disappear. You know about this limitation that you keep going on about because it’s extremely well documented on fil-c.org | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||