"Oracle, Apple, ARM, Google, and Microsoft" are actually a LOT of programmers and non-programmers with a huge variety of opininons, and I'm sure opinions similar to mine can be found there as well.
Also, they have loads and loads of money and their jobs come with prestige, so they have no problem attracting developers to jobs that are perceived by some programmers (such as me) as boring boilerplate jobs that make me miserable.
That answer was more related to the dynamic arrays discussion. If you want to move to hardware memory tagging, is that even a big thing? In any case my understanding is that it would work with pointer + length just as well, because the hardware tags are created at buffer allocation time, not based on arguments passed to a function.
Of course it works with pointer + length, the whole point of hardware memory tagging is that is a proven failure with 50 years of examples, that leaving to C developers the task to manually prove pointer + length are valid, just doesn't work regardless of what is being sold as story.
So lots of money is being burned to ensure that C code is caged and does no harm, in scenarios where C is to still be used.
Also, they have loads and loads of money and their jobs come with prestige, so they have no problem attracting developers to jobs that are perceived by some programmers (such as me) as boring boilerplate jobs that make me miserable.
That answer was more related to the dynamic arrays discussion. If you want to move to hardware memory tagging, is that even a big thing? In any case my understanding is that it would work with pointer + length just as well, because the hardware tags are created at buffer allocation time, not based on arguments passed to a function.