> I perfectly see the folly of my proposal. But it was a proposal, attempt > to begin discussion of the problem. But based on your answer, you do not > see the problem. You can not see the forest for the trees. You think, > that all security problems are technical problems, that can be solved > with the help of the compiler.
No, the primary difference is that we act. Whereas you just talk (and accuse). > But with such mindset, at current trends, > in 5-7 years the only code that you can trust in the project, it will > only your own code. In 5-7 years, concrete in bridges is decaying, traffic light standards are decaying. Slowly, as it does. That fact does mean engineers shouldn't keep designing bridges and traffic intersections. We never said our code should be trusted. In this group, we only try to build robust design practices that other systems could (should?) copy to make their systems more robust. We also don't promise to be working on everything revelant, either.
