> It's not fair to pin this on the ambiguous collective "developers."
Why not? Is not as if the majority of us are much into fix things, instead of continue along. Developers are very much the main problem here.
Neither is a problem of resources, suposely developers earn well and some of the biggest corporations of the world work on software.
But each time is even hinted "why not ACTUALLY fix things?" the answers is "nope, too much work", but for create chat apps and more tools for surveilance and privacy invasion the money pit is bottomless.
> But each time is even hinted "why not ACTUALLY fix things?" the answers is "nope, too much work", but for create chat apps and more tools for surveilance and privacy invasion the money pit is bottomless.
You're blaming developers but citing product/economic/business decisions. In all likelihood, the problem is as much organizational/economic as it is technical. For example, consider the manager who was warned about the security risks by the engineering team, but decides to ship the product on schedule and get promoted long before any serious vulns are discovered. Or the case where engineering raises the issue, but fails to effectively communicate the severity of the concern. Or the case where engineering _assumes_ management understands the risks.
I'm sure there are lots of developers who do think they should just use C because it's what they've used forever and _lesser developers_ might make mistakes but _they_ don't, but I'd be surprised if these folks are the primary driver of the situation.
> You're blaming developers but citing product/economic/business decisions
This is a big part of it. But here, the kind of "developers" that could cause the big impact come from MS, Google, Apple and a few others. That certainly how normal people will look at this, IMHO.
But also, open source developers. Here is where is weird... what could be the reason to not build better tools?
I can name quite a few people who'd love to work on this stuff, but the companies that pay them rather would they make yet another chat app or move buttons on a shopping site around. Large movements like this are hard to do on the side, especially since replacing existing software piece-by-piece is often a harder proposition than doing a full replace.
Is interesting, because maybe budget a 10% of time doing this will yield a lot of progress. Also, taking in consideration than certains tools (programming languages, OS APIs, shells, etc) have a large surface area of impact and many developers actually not care if the tools is made on C/C++, care that solve a certain problem. (Of course, this demand that the c-call conventions stay because that wire A LOT, but that is small and contained).
Why not? Is not as if the majority of us are much into fix things, instead of continue along. Developers are very much the main problem here.
Neither is a problem of resources, suposely developers earn well and some of the biggest corporations of the world work on software.
But each time is even hinted "why not ACTUALLY fix things?" the answers is "nope, too much work", but for create chat apps and more tools for surveilance and privacy invasion the money pit is bottomless.