I'm not involved in Go development, only watching from the sidelines. I think it's very likely due to the project dynamics that after the first (published) exploit against real software, the compiler will be changed so that low-level data races can no longer result in type confusion. There will be some overhead, but it's going to be quite modest. I think this is realistic because there's already a garbage collector. Indirection to fresh heap allocations can be used to make writes to multiple fields to appear as atomic.
So I think Go is absolutely not in the same bucket as C, C++, or unsafe Rust.
The annual report of this org is pretty underspecified. There are numerous directors. Are they getting paid under "ops & admin" (11%)? Is "advancement" (12.3%) marketing?
Prossimo gets 6.8%. Does that money go to programmers? Are people whose works are being rewritten and plagiarized offered money to do the rewrite themselves or does it go to friends and family?
Why does an org that takes donations not produce a proper report?
I find it strange that this web site completely ignores the Java ecosystem, which offers memory-safe implementations for most of the protocols and services listed.
18 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 16.6 ms ] threadPerhaps in part because the sponsors are invested in using go and benefit from its inclusion in a list of memory safe languages.
So I think Go is absolutely not in the same bucket as C, C++, or unsafe Rust.
Waiting for the traditional Rust reply.
Politicians
False.
C and C++ are not memory safe if you use the most common and most performant implementations, sure.
At some point these folks are going to have to accept that caveat
Prossimo gets 6.8%. Does that money go to programmers? Are people whose works are being rewritten and plagiarized offered money to do the rewrite themselves or does it go to friends and family?
Why does an org that takes donations not produce a proper report?