"btw, did you see the press..." <- > <@rursprung:matrix.org> btw, did you see the press release from the white house? [PRESS RELEASE: Future Software Should Be Memory Safe](https://www.whitehouse.gov/oncd/briefing-room/2024/02/26/press-release-technical-report/) > > in [the technical report](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Final-ONCD-Technical-Report.pdf) they actually mention rust in one place, though maybe not as supportive as one might hope: > > > The space ecosystem is not immune to memory safety vulnerabilities, however there are several > constraints in space systems with regards to language use. First, the language must allow the code > to be close to the kernel so that it can tightly interact with both software and hardware; second, the > language must support determinism so the timing of the outputs are consistent; and third, the > language must not have – or be able to override – the “garbage collector,” a function that > automatically reclaims memory allocated by the computer program that is no longer in use.xvi > These requirements help ensure the reliable and predictable outcomes necessary for space systems. > According to experts, both memory safe and memory unsafe programming languages meet these > requirements. At this time, the most widely used languages that meet all three properties are C and > C++, which are not memory safe programming languages. Rust, one example of a memory safe > programming language, has the three requisite properties above, but has not yet been proven in > space systems. Further progress on development toolchains, workforce education, and fielded case > studies are needed to demonstrate the viability of memory safe languages in these use cases. In the > interim, there are other ways to achieve memory safe outcomes at scale by using secure building > blocks. Therefore, to reduce memory safety vulnerabilities in space or other embedded systems > that face similar constraints, a complementary approach to implement memory safety through > hardware can be explored. "has not yet been proven" is less a matter of opinion and more of fact though; they mean "we haven't seen it used in a certain amount of deployed systems"