[Not really OT] Crowdstrike Analysis: It was a NULL pointer from the memory unsafe C++ language.

[Don Allen]

On Sunday, 28 July 2024 at 18:21:41 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 7/28/24 18:12, Don Allen wrote:
>> ...
>>>
>[snip]
>
> I mean, not really. You can manipulate raw pointers to 
> stack-allocated memory in Rust too, it just will not be safe.

I was talking about 'safe' Rust. I thought that was obvious. 
Apparently not.

[snip}
>
> Rust will never be able to make the assertions about memory 
> safety that people seem to think Rust makes about memory safety.

I don't think there's any doubt about the assertions Rust makes 
about memory safety in code that does not have the word 'unsafe' 
anywhere. Are you saying that they are lying?

>
> Anyway, D it already makes the assertion that `@safe` means 
> memory safe, and it is in much better shape than Rust a priori 
> in terms of memory safety because of the garbage collector.
>
> It is quite annoying to me that people just go "memory safe"? 
> That must mean like Rust. Nope. Why does nobody ever bring up 
> Java?

Or Lisp/Scheme?

>
>> Note that Zig provides only stack- and manual heap-allocation. 
>> It is not a memory-safe language. But there's a lot of 
>> interest in it, despite not being close to release and a 
>> growing issue list.
>
> I think they are doing some interesting things, but it is not 
> for me.

That's completely irrelevant. The point is that Zig is not 
memory-safe and still has attracted great interest. Some are even 
using it, prematurely.