| ▲ | coliveira 4 hours ago | |
If that's the case, they should stop using git and Linux right now, because it's everything written in C. Having 0.1% of the code in a safe language will not change anything, it's only a bad security blanket. | ||
| ▲ | aw1621107 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
> Having 0.1% of the code in a safe language will not change anything, it's only a bad security blanket. Just because something does provide an immediate perfect solution does not mean it isn't not worth investigating and/or pursuing. Also consider that bugs tend to be more prevalent in new code (e.g., [0]) as a result, you are likely to see more of a benefit from writing new code in a memory-safe language than raw line count proportions would indicate. [0]: https://security.googleblog.com/2024/09/eliminating-memory-s... | ||
| ▲ | nvme0n1p1 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
You don't believe in slowly and iteratively improving a codebase over time? Should git stick with its weird mishmash of C and perl and shell scripts forever, for tradition's sake, performance and maintainability be damned? | ||
| ▲ | baq 24 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | |
Rewriting it all in rust with bug for bug compatibility and byte identical outputs won’t cost more than $100k in tokens, but I don’t think this is an answer you’re looking for | ||