He's going to write it, so it'll be better than everything in the past and unicorns will fly by when you use it.

Hypothetical code is always better than the unpleasant kind we actually write…

I hope fighting that strawman you built was fun, but I really don't know where the BS snark came from.

I didn't say new code will be flawless. Just that OpenSSL code is bad and insecure.

>Hypothetical code is always better than the unpleasant kind we actually write…

Well written code is always better than the crap that OpenSSL was (crap as admitted by most of security experts and groups working with it).

People who cannot tell between code with inevitable bugs and flaws and crappy code that just welcomes them in, don't really belong in the profession.

> I hope fighting that strawman you built was fun, but I really don't know where the BS snark came from.

The BS snark which started it was your still-unsupported assertion that “SSL is a security joke”.

> Well written code is always better than the crap that OpenSSL was (crap as admitted by most of security experts and groups working with it).

It's easy to criticize OpenSSL and, well, every other SSL library which has had problems. It's a lot harder to replace it and actual security experts have thus far chosen to overhaul OpenSSL rather than trying to replace it from scratch. I trust the judgment of the OpenBSD and Google security teams over your assertion that it's so easy to replace.