[onlydeadheroes]

Indeed it is much better to implement it in a language such as C or C++ that has historically had almost no security issues and has very few pitfalls.

[detaro]

Please don't attack arguments the parent comment didn't make.

[jsjohnst]

Or said another way (from the HN guidelines):

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

[onlydeadheroes]

Of course, because security issues and language pitfalls have no bearing on cryptographic implementations.

[detaro]

"Dynamic languages have issues" does not say "all other languages are good".

[onlydeadheroes]

He is saying dynamic languages crash and burn in this context. Specifying "dynamic" does strongly suggest non-dynamic languages do not crash and burn in this context.

[api]

C's weak type system proves my point.

Safer code can be written in C++ IF you take advantage of its type system to implement safety features, but the language doesn't force you to do this so there is much insecure C++ code around.

Go, Rust, Java, C#, Haskell, etc. are examples of relatively safe languages with type systems that mostly keep the foot guns in the foot gun cabinet.

[zzzcpan]

> with type systems that mostly keep the foot guns in the foot gun cabinet

They don't compared to dynamic languages. Those type systems are only an improvement compared to C and C++, not to dynamic languages.