[tailrecursion]

The article in question is published on Google's blog. Has Google resolved memory safety issues in its C++ code base? Did G port their code base to Rust or some other memsafe language? What's preventing them from doing that by themselves?

What's preventing Microsoft, or Apple, or the coagulate Linux kernel team, or any other kernel team, from adopting memsafe technology or practice by themselves for themselves?

The last thing we need are what are evidently incompetent organizations that can't take care of their own products making standards, or useless academics making standards to try to force other people to follow rules because they know better than everyone else.

If the team that designed and implemented KeyKos, or that designed Erlang, were pushing for standardized definitions or levels of memory safety, it would be less ridiculous.

At the same time, consciousness of security issues and memory safety has been growing quickly, and memory safety in programming languages has literally exploded in importance. It's treated in every new PL I've seen.

Putting pressure on big companies to fix their awful products is fine. No pressure needs to be applied to the rest of the industry, because it's already outpacing all of the producing entities that are calling for standards.

[benced]

The idea that Google is "evidently incompetent" for failing to resolve memory safety issues in their decades-old, giant codebase is dumb.

[tailrecursion]

If Google has failed so far to resolve mem safety issues in their decades old giant code base, then I'd rather hear standardization ideas from someone who succeeded. If G succeeded at resolving those issues, then that's a concrete positive example for the rest of industry to consider following. They ought to lead by example.

It seems like decades-old giant code bases are precisely the ones hardest to migrate to memory safety. That's where coercion and enforcement is needed most. You and I don't need to be told to start a new project in not-C++ do we? Nearly every trained programmer has been brainwashed (in a good way) with formal methods, type systems, bounds checking, and security concerns. Now those same people who champion this stuff say it isn't enough, and therefore we need to do more of the same but with coercion. That's a failure to understand the problem.