Google's approach to development at least in this part looks very unprofessional.
The have had a bunch of crap code nobody cared about, and then some guy has rewritten it arbitrarily choosing development tools just because of his own preference.
What next, another guy will show up who likes JavaScript and considers the previous work unsatisfactory, and will rewrite everything in JavaScript?
There is enough shit languages already, and Go being one of the worst modern languages. It doesn't even feel modern. It is so poorly designed that it feels like some talentless experimenting from 70's.
My condolences to you. Now your product has become a target of mockery.
Also I love cats and feel sorry that the name of those lovely animals is used in a discredited entity.
The problem is that your product did not have just a security vulnerability, but had a number of blatantly unprofessional mistakes showing off ignorance and carelessness of its authors.
This is the worst that can happen with an author of open source and especially security software.
I hope at least you the poor cat's devs realize what has happened.
Seriously, come on, people are not rationally thinking creatures at all, nobody is. There is nothing to even measure.
If everybody became rational, the world would collapse instantly. Do you realize how many people would cease their socially indispensable work if they acted perfectly rational from an individual (meaning egotistical) perspective?
I clearly see that I am irrational, but I cannot stop being so.
I estimate that in order to become rationally thinking, I would have to undergo an unbearably painful transformation of my entire mental entity. My mind just works that way, it is hardwired irrationally, as any other human's mind.
The article and the attempt itself are great though.
Basically those are examples of bare pointer manipulations (as references are essentially syntactically sugared bare pointers).
Although it can be mitigated with specially written collections (incompatible with the standard collections) and strict coding guidelines, I have to agree with you that the C++ memory model itself is insanely dangerous.
Don't you think that first off you need to be an expert in all those languages, in web-technologies, have vast experience and up to date knowledge in all of that, to make such claims?
I'm pretty sure you just have wrong impression of C++, or to put it simply, you don't know C++.
In what way does C++ have worse response time in terms of maintenance? What do you mean exactly?
In general, statically typed compiled languages are better at refactoring than dynamically typed interpreted ones. Changing programs in the latter without fair test coverage means teetering on the brink of a catastrophe. Just recently I have seen an article on HN claiming unmaintainability of dynamic languages.
The truth is that every general purpose language is general purpose, and the claim about language suitability is a commonplace and an overgeneralization. You can do 3D games in JavaScript and client web apps in C++. Different languages have different drawbacks and that may limit their applications, but C++ is not targeted for OS development, and JavaScript is not targeted for web development, both are just general purpose languages.
Speaking of "low-levelness" of C++, with all the modern features and libraries it is as high level as other languages, and in some aspects is even more high level, e.g. JavaScript or Python have no corresponding means as the template metaprogramming which is the high high level. C++ just allows you to do low-level manipulations, you are not required to.
There are many myths and prejudices against C++ caused by ignorance and frustration of those who have not cracked it at a time.