Hacker News Reader

Rust isn't the long term solution either. I like Rust, but in terms of fully provably secure systems, it's a stopgap until the usability of fully verified approaches like ATS, F-star et Al reach a point where they can be economical.

Also what the other person said about burning down x86 and starting over.

View on HN

Those are all things that could fix the problem. But let me ask this another way. Imagine that you travel into the future a decade or three and a computer scientist tells you "pretty much no one gets buffer overflows anymore because of X".

It seems unlikely to me that the answer is going to be ATS, or "we burned down x86".

Ok, sure, if you only focus on buffer overflows. Those are the low-hanging fruit of software security. If in future decades we can say "professional software is pretty much secure because of X", X is absolutely not Rust. And I don't think we'll still be using x86.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com