> I'm baffled to keep hearing some people saying that manual memory management is okay when the evidence is this huge.
It's a lot easier for someone to scoff at memory bugs on an internet forum than it is to write memory-safe code.
It's a lot easier for someone to scoff at memory bugs on an internet forum than it is to write memory-safe code.
People need to "humble down" and see that if people keep falling into the same traps even with training, it's not as simple as "people sucks"
The parent isn't saying "people suck" or even that "people who write memory bugs suck".
They're saying that 'programmer machismo' sucks.
Saying, "we don't need better tools, we just need better people, and I'm one of those better people," sucks.
Closely related is saying, "manual memory management is hard, so I guess most programmers should use better tools. But I'm a really advanced 10x 'leet programmer, (in spite of how much of my code has wound up in CVE's), and I'm clearly capable of writing code using manual memory management because of my 'leet skills."
It's one of the peculiarities of the field that we're completely ok with practitioners using dangerous tools and building techniques when better tools and techniques are available.
Hence why we need languages that are better at memory management than C. It's ergonomics.
In the same way you can't put a racing gearbox/clutch in a street car and expect everybody to deal with it. They won't.