That doesn't even make sense. Also avoid using vague Microsoft-slang. Memory-safe is a much better term.
No, it's not just you. I've been saying this for 5 years (Since about a year after I learned to program), and nobody gives a fuck / is competent enough to rewrite the stuff on solid foundations.
Fuck off. So is C, and C has no semantics whatsoever that prevent them, i.e, if one output from the compiler has no side channel vulns, the very next output may indeed have them.
That doesn't even make sense. Also avoid using vague Microsoft-slang. Memory-safe is a much better term.
No, it's not just you. I've been saying this for 5 years (Since about a year after I learned to program), and nobody gives a fuck / is competent enough to rewrite the stuff on solid foundations.
Fuck off. So is C, and C has no semantics whatsoever that prevent them, i.e, if one output from the compiler has no side channel vulns, the very next output may indeed have them.