> C is not ideal, but it's a practical way to gate the entry to critical software
Aw, yes, the C makes genius programmers meme. I think we've seen very little evidence this is the case. C may be useful to know. Learning C well, because it is difficult, may be useful. These things are speculative, but let's grant them. Unfortunately for you, the proof of the pudding is in the eating? The fact that lots of C code has lots of problems should be an indication that, not only is C not working to solve many modern problems, but that, if C gives us geniuses, we aren't seeing the results.
> introduce the borrow checker in C
You: Just glue on some wings and see if it flies...
Me: That's not how this works! That's not how any of this works!
> I'm only claiming that to be effective at C you must understand computer architecture well.
You still have this problem: We have lots and lots of buggy C code in critical software.
If your claim is to be effective at C you must understand computer architecture well, but unfortunately few are effective at C, because few really understand computer architecture well, and unfortunately we have lots of buggy C code as a result, I'm not sure where you are after that?
Is it possible C hasn't worked as the gate you say it has worked as?
> to be effective at C you must understand computer architecture well.
So long as we are here, I would also quibble with this claim. Knowing loads about C, or more specifically how to prevent C memory safety issues, is perhaps not the best indication one knows anything about network security or cryptography. In fact, we know the reverse is the case. There are plenty of OpenSSL devs who are domain experts in cryptography, who have not proven themselves well adapted to deal with C memory safety issues. Something like Rust sounds perfect for such a use case?
> Right, because the only way to fix problems is to rewrite? Typical inexperienced programmer attitude.
What do you think writing a borrow checker for C would entail?! Do I think it would be a tremendous effort, with little gained? Oh yeah. Do I think we should just use Rust for new software? Yep, because why wait for this C borrow checker? I just don't get it. I think saying "Just use Rust" makes me sensible. "Let's build a borrow checker for C!" is tilting at windmills.
I've programmed in C for 20 years and Rust for 3 and I'm a _much_ better programmer after using Rust. From experience, Rust doesn't make you a lazy programmer, it makes you a much better programmer.
Aw, yes, the C makes genius programmers meme. I think we've seen very little evidence this is the case. C may be useful to know. Learning C well, because it is difficult, may be useful. These things are speculative, but let's grant them. Unfortunately for you, the proof of the pudding is in the eating? The fact that lots of C code has lots of problems should be an indication that, not only is C not working to solve many modern problems, but that, if C gives us geniuses, we aren't seeing the results.
> introduce the borrow checker in C
You: Just glue on some wings and see if it flies...
Me: That's not how this works! That's not how any of this works!