Hacktical C: practical hacker's guide to the C programming language

> Using a stricter language helps with reducing some classes of bugs, at the cost of reduced flexibility in expressing a solution and increased effort creating the software.

First of all, those languages do not "help" "reducing" some classes of bugs. They often entirely remove them.

Then, even assuming that any safe language with unsafe regions (Rust, C#, etc) would not give you comparable flexibility at a fraction of the risk... if your flexible, effortless solution contains entire classes of bugs, then there is no point in comparing "effort". You should at least take into account the effort in providing a software with a high confidence that those bugs are not there.

No amount of chest-thumping about how good of a programmer you are and telling everyone else to, "get good," has had any effect on the rate of CVE's cause by memory safety bugs that are trivial to introduce in a C program.

There are good reasons to use C. It's best to approach it with a clear mind and a practical understanding of its limitations. Be prepared to mitigate those short comings. It's no small task!

I am not sure the number of CVEs measures anything meaningful. The price for zero-days for important targets goes into the millions.

While I am sure there can not be enough security, I am not at all sure the extreme focus on memory safety is worth it, and I am also not sure the added complexity of Rust is really worth it. I would prefer to simplify the stack and make C safer.

If that's your preference you're going about it all wrong. Rust's safety is about culture and you're looking at the technology, it's not that Rust doesn't have technology but the technology isn't where you start.

This was the only notable failing of Sean's (abandoned) "Safe C++" - it delivers all the technology a safe C++ culture would have needed, but there is no safe C++ culture so it was waved away as unimportant.

The guy whose mine loses fifty miners in a roof collapse doesn't need better mining technology, inadequate technology isn't why those miners died, culture is. His mine didn't have safety culture, probably because he didn't give shit about safety, and his workers either shared this dismissal or had no choice in the matter.

Also "extreme focus" is a misinterpretation. It's not an extreme focus, it's just mandatory, it's like if you said humans have an "extreme focus" on breathing air, they really don't - they barely even think about breathing air - it was just mandatory so if you don't do it then I guess that stands out.

Let's turn it around: Do you think the mining guy that does not care about safety will start caring about a safety culture because there is a new safety tool? And if it is mandated by government, will it be implemented in a meaningful way, or just on paper?