Am I missing something? Where’s the actual proposed standard? They talk about the need for a standard, discuss how it should operate, say they are proposing a standard and then…. crickets?
The ACM article this is supporting goes into more depth. You are correct that this is not presenting a standard, it is a rallying cry for said work to begin, and is likely to take a long time (“several decades”) to become mature.
Thanks for the response Steve. I understand what they’re trying to achieve, but I’m not sure it’s going to turn out how they hope. A lot of ‘safety-washing’ and obfuscation has already happened in the memory safety debate, and it’s not yet clear whether the standard will clarify or obscure those issues.
Am I missing something? Where’s the actual proposed standard? They talk about the need for a standard, discuss how it should operate, say they are proposing a standard and then…. crickets?
The ACM article this is supporting goes into more depth. You are correct that this is not presenting a standard, it is a rallying cry for said work to begin, and is likely to take a long time (“several decades”) to become mature.
Thanks for the response Steve. I understand what they’re trying to achieve, but I’m not sure it’s going to turn out how they hope. A lot of ‘safety-washing’ and obfuscation has already happened in the memory safety debate, and it’s not yet clear whether the standard will clarify or obscure those issues.