I think there is indeed a lack of commitment. Thanks to capitalism and therefore production deadlines. Well, given, you can’t always catch “all” potential bugs, not just memory related issues. That’s sometimes not even theoretically possible. But it’s no secret how software quality increases by testing it thouroughly. And a lot of the time I just don’t see that happening. I’ve worked at institutions where software tests were done by answering the question “does it compile and run?”. And I’ve experienced systematic tests with specialized test engineers, who still had to cut short a lot of the time. But to assume that software is always tested well enough is in my experience naive.
Read all your other comments man!
This is not helpful. If you have critique, be more specific. I know what I’ve written.
I am always open to discussion and changing my views if I see convincing arguments, as I did at another place here. Your lack of patience and quick judgement of my character is not my fault, but yours. I was discussing the issues here neutrally with you so far.
However, this topic is done for me anyway, as the discussions here did indeed change my view regarding memory safety in C++.
Ah, just as all the memory-mishandling related security issues in all operating systems out there. Nobody tests their shit well enough nowadays!
Quick??? Read all your other comments man! I take it as you not wanting to accept it.
I think there is indeed a lack of commitment. Thanks to capitalism and therefore production deadlines. Well, given, you can’t always catch “all” potential bugs, not just memory related issues. That’s sometimes not even theoretically possible. But it’s no secret how software quality increases by testing it thouroughly. And a lot of the time I just don’t see that happening. I’ve worked at institutions where software tests were done by answering the question “does it compile and run?”. And I’ve experienced systematic tests with specialized test engineers, who still had to cut short a lot of the time. But to assume that software is always tested well enough is in my experience naive.
This is not helpful. If you have critique, be more specific. I know what I’ve written.
I am always open to discussion and changing my views if I see convincing arguments, as I did at another place here. Your lack of patience and quick judgement of my character is not my fault, but yours. I was discussing the issues here neutrally with you so far.
However, this topic is done for me anyway, as the discussions here did indeed change my view regarding memory safety in C++.