3 ms·
> As if with "modern" languages you would be safer. Poor new delusional kids. That's a rather amazing quip. How would I, in my mid-thirties, accidentally write
by vpkaihla 11y ago
> As if with "modern" languages you would be safer. Poor new delusional kids.
That's a rather amazing quip. How would I, in my mid-thirties, accidentally write a buffer overflow in Haskell or Rust?
- imglorp 11y agoWait, what, these things have no bugs, you say? All software has bugs, unintended side effects, untested code paths, and other cruft at the lower layers, especially when interfacing with the OS. Look how many vulnerabilities have been found in the JPG libraries alone, and that's just a bitmap; how hard could it be, right? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/498234/vulnerability-in-the-functional-programming-paradigm http://stackoverflow.com/questions/498234/vulnerability-in-t...
- icebraining 11y agoInteresting choice of a link, since all the answers essentially say that it may be easier to make it consume lots of memory, leading to a possible DoS. That's not pleasant, but hardly a major problem compared to remote code execution. All software has bugs, it's true, and language runtimes included. But that doesn't mean some languages can't be safer.
- chris_wot 11y agoI guess it depends on how imaginative you are.