While new safety features in C++ may be impressive, Google's data shows that memory safety vulnerabilities are still a major issue. Switching to a memory-safe language like Rust can help reduce the risk of vulnerabilities and improve the overall security and reliability of a product. The potential benefits make it a worthwhile investment, even if it requires some effort to migrate from C++. #RustIsTheRealDeal
How much of the benefit comes from the rewrite itself? A more precise comparison would be rewriting that C or C++ in the same language but with memory safety in mind and see how things turned out.
The same question comes up when an existing system is rewritten from language A to language B and big performance gains are seen. The language could be the big cause, but so could the extra engineering effort itself -- updated design, fresh attention to the requirements, etc.
Google isn't rewriting more now than they were before, they're just discussing the use of C/C++ for new code. Presumably, if rewriting chunks of code were enough in its own right, they would never have had so many critical security flaws.
> if rewriting chunks of code were enough in its own right, they would never have had so many critical security flaws.
Reducing defects is one of the main reasons (others being maintainability, readability, better integration, and similar) for refactoring and rewriting code. There's usually not enough time/money to do it, especially for large codebases.
I quite like rewriting parts of a codebase to modernize it, and I have often closed tons of bugs in a short time this way. It is definitely effective. But not as cost-effective as deprioritizing bugs into "won't fix" territory, which is what many companies like to do.
I also agree that it's a presumption. I don't know that I agree with it is all. It seems like more engineering attention and excitement is actually good for project quality, and maybe that's a confounding factor here. More data would help, though all this might never be definitively conclusive.
