Post

In a CRA webinar last week, I commented it is possible that C/C++ are a per se CRA violation, since C/C++ are insecure by design. An attendee replied "but C/C++ is what embedded use" and I said, more or less, "tough". Here's @gregkh.bsky.social on it: www.zdnet.com/article/rust...

zdnet.comRust will save Linux from AI, says Greg Kroah-HartmanNow that doesn't mean Linux stable kernel maintainer Greg Kroah-Hartman thinks Rust is magic.

Luis Villa

@lu.is

To put it another way: if the official position of the Android and Linux kernel teams is “we, some of the world’s best coders, can’t safely use C” then the bar under CRA’s requirements of “safe by design” should be nearly impossible to meet for mere mortals when using C.

1/6/26, 7:34 pm5 reposts12 likes

Bill Nottingham

@notting.bsky.social

1 June

Not saying people should use C, but if we were to extend that to what ~every application is deployed on, not to mention faultlore.com/blah/c-isnt-... … that implies it's impossible to meet for anyone.

faultlore.comC Isn't A Programming Language Anymore - Faultlore

jokeyrhyme

@jokeyrhy.me

1 June

impossible to meet for anyone _today_ , sure but at the very least we should have governments procurement rules block the spending of taxpayer money on negligent technology choices after some future date e.g. 2050 ? 2060 ? just needs a line in the sand for incentives

Bill Nottingham

@notting.bsky.social

1 June

Definitely. But that's a different bar than "CRA this September".

Luis Villa

@lu.is

1 June

(Dec. 2027 for this part.) If Ireland could be trusted to actually enforce the CRA against US companies, then everyone could declare a truce and spend a few years porting things. But of course it won't, so everyone will always say "yeah, I'll port it to Rust in 2060, definitely, for sure"