Biden administration calls for developers to embrace memory-safe programing languages and move away from those that cause buffer overflows and other memory access vulnerabilities.

White House urges developers to dump C and C++::Biden administration calls for developers to embrace memory-safe programing languages and move away from those that cause buffer overflows and other memory access vulnerabilities.

  • mox@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    67·
    9 months ago

    They’re definitely not seen as an authority in this field. Why would anyone care what recommendation they make?

    It’s possible that they are acting on the advice of advisors who are authorities in this field.

    And so why make one at all?

    I expect it’s because information and industrial security are components of national security, which is of great concern to them, and those things depend on software.

    I’m not surprised to see this, given that state-sponsored electronic attacks are on the rise these days.

    • EatATacoEnglish
      83·
      9 months ago

      This is exactly why people sound sophomoric when they say “lobbying needs to go!” There are some drastic problems with lobbying as it is allowed now, but the last thing we need is the government regulating things they know nothing about without the input of experts. On top of that, it’s nonsense that I can’t pass my local councilman on the street and stop and push them to spend more time addressing important issues like climate change.

      • mox@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        111·
        9 months ago

        It’s important to remember that the argument against lobbying isn’t about the broadest sense of the word “lobbying”, but rather about corporations and other moneyed interests having unfair and unhealthy influence over the laws that govern everyone else.

        The people who decry lobbying probably agree with you; they’re just using the word in an implicitly narrow context.

        • EatATacoEnglish
          3·
          9 months ago

          they’re just using the word in an implicitly narrow context.

          I think we mostly agree, but disagree on this point. I think it’s just that most people haven’t given it any thought. Like they are just ignorantly going along with the popular opinion.

          • mox@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            2·
            9 months ago

            I suppose mob mentality is likely to play some part in every widely shared view.

            At the very least, I can guarantee that one of said people has given it thought. :)

      • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.mlEnglish
        31·
        8 months ago

        I don’t think your argument quite holds up. The directionality is important. It’s true that the government can’t always know about technical things directly, but I think it’s fine for the government to be expected to know which experts they need to consult, and for that process not to just be open to everyone (which just means more open to those with more money).

        • EatATacoEnglish
          2·
          8 months ago

          it’s fine for the government to be expected to know which experts they need to consult

          What happens if they don’t even know it’s a problem? Or they don’t realize the severity of the problem so it gets a lower priority?

          And it also sounds like you’re arguing that I can’t talk to my local representative about what I think are the important issues that need to be addressed. If they have to seek me out, I would have zero input.