Beeflang garbage seeker/collector

[Timon Gehr]

On 2/20/24 19:15, Marconi wrote:
> 
> Good programmers should have the most control of whats going on in their 
> software.

So-called "good programmers" have been responsible for awful 
vulnerabilities that ruined people's safety and privacy for decades. 
It's pure hubris to think a non-trivial manually-memory managed program 
has any hope to get manual memory management correct as long as only 
"good programmers" are contributing to it. The fact that you are even 
advocating for this dynamic testing approach rips a big hole into this 
narrative of "good programmers".

Dynamic testing is not reliable because you simply do not enter the 
advanced adversarial inputs that are often necessary to expose and 
exploit the vulnerabilities.

Of course, once you have bought into the need for manual memory 
management (real or imagined), dynamic testing is better than nothing. 
However, telling people that they are not good programmers unless they 
use dangerous language features is simply irresponsible. The opposite is 
often the case.