This is an easy mistake to make. I'd say the API isn't helping there either, there's an improvement to find in Cap'n'proto to make it safer.

Nice trick to get the pressure off the team while it looks for a proper solution.

How the medical sector is struggling with badly designed software. Also important to note how security is just getting in the way of nurses and doctors jobs.

Nice approach to also hunt for memory safety issues while software is in production.

This is a big deal for the places where Rust could shine.

A good reminder on how the "five why" are just a starting pont. For proper investigation and risk management you need to go deeper.

This is a neat example of what programming languages could check at compile time. This clearly brings way more safety when you get such contract validation at build time.

Long but fascinating article on a blend of guidelines which could be statically checked to enforce a memory-safe subset of C++.

Kind of sad to see asserts misused so much in the Python community. Still that's a good lesson for everyone: when using an assert, expect it won't get executed when in production.

Indeed, the story of integrating C and C++ with Rust isn't a simple one right now. It might introduce larger attack surfaces. Some improvements are proposed in this paper.

Interesting take... Is it really practical? Until which size is it viable? What are we loosing by aggregating? Also makes me wonder about alert fatigue... It clearly raises extra questions.

There are really many initiatives to make C and C++ safer lately. I wonder which one will see adoption and what will make its way to the standards.

People tend to be fixated on the "unsafe" keyword and assuming not using it will make their code devoid of memory safety bugs. Well, it's a bit more subtle than this. It helps you know where such bugs can hide but it can't completely prevent them all the way down the stack.

Interesting approach. There's still a lot we can achieve with static analysis in those good old languages.

It's good to also see articles which point out the problems with Rust. Overall I find it an interesting language but people tend to oversell it too much. This is a nice reminder it already carries complexity issues.

Like it or not, this is definitely filling a very unique niche. It's a very good fit for system software where safety is important and available time limited. There is no better option for now.

Definitely this! It's important to model properly your domain and leverage smart value types everywhere it makes sense. This can prevent quite a few different types of bugs.

Now this is very interesting. An excellent teaser for Herb Sutter's CppCon 2022 talk. Let's see where that goes.

If you want to get to the bottom of a problem and of why an accident happen, people need psychological safety. This is indeed necessary if you want them to share truthfully why the accident happened in the first place. Otherwise fear will drive the conversation and hide important facts.

Interesting points in there, indeed we rarely see things presented along an advantage in productivity for Rust when it's compared to Python.