why does /g/ hate the idea of rewriting critical software in a memory safe language?

because linters and static analysis get you 90% of the safety with 10% of the pain

>>105605500
why so many CVEs then?

>>105605552
sabotage by statue hating corporate communists

Churn on critical anything is a huge unnecessary risk to production. There are (a very few) people doing good work with rewriting software in the world but none of them are "computer programmers."

>>105606225
if you have a good set of tests, wouldn't that prove that a rewrite is a drop-in replacement?

>>105605451 (OP)
>ChatLGBT, rewrite everything into a machine code

>>105606435
no because if the original has ub it might change behavior outside the tests

>>105605451 (OP)
Because memory safety is achieved with wall-to-wall runtime checks at the machine code level.
/g/ poors can't spare that storage or those clock cycles, so its ebil.

>>105605451 (OP)
Because the savior of the safety language people wanna use is unsafely unstandardized and controlled by some individuals you can't safely leave around children

>>105605552
because those techniques are relatively new and optional when they should be mandatory.

>>105609176
why even use them if you know what yuor doing and wirter good code