1. 60
  1. 1

    I like how this article bypasses the three arguments I keep seeing repeated for the continued use of memory-unsafe languages like C:

    1. The ecosystem is vast
    2. Rewriting is a waste of time
    3. Unsafe languages are “simple” and good programmers don’t make mistakes

    (1) by (a) noting their continued use of tooling where applicable, (b) noting obsoleted tooling, and (c) taking as a given that people can and will learn new languages.

    (2) is bypassed as well, by a focus on new components, though I ruefully wonder how many times Android’s Bluetooth stack has been rewritten?

    (3) however … how does one address zealotry except by letting it pass in silence?