Your assessment is at odds with their own statements.
Google can be assumed to know the hole they are in. The mistake is thinking everybody else is in it too.
Google can be assumed to know the hole they are in. The mistake is thinking everybody else is in it too.
Which project of similar size doesn't have bugs? You seem to imply most don't, which is empirically untrue.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C15&q=bug...
And, if you really want to restrict to your goalpost moving subset, then go ahead and demonstrate that the above general trends are not trends in your subset. Because the literature on it disagrees with you.
So, to defend your claim "The mistake is thinking everybody else is in it too", care to show where "everybody else" is free from these bugs?
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C15&q=use...
https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=use+after+f...
This is the very first line from the very first post in the thread:
>> It’s hard, if not impossible, to avoid use-after-frees in a non-trivial codebase.
I just provided thousands of examples where it is true. To offset all that evidence can you provide, say, millions of examples where zero (your phrase) use-after-free bugs have been found?
>You reveal that you never had any intention of engaging honestly.
Honest engaging would be for you to provide evidence for a claim you made when asked. I provided extremely solid counter evidence from the result of many, many research teams.
So, care to honestly engage about your claim?