4 ms·

Java is a bad language to work in because it's not expressive, not because it protects programmers (which it doesn't). Compared to C/C++, yes it does. Java pro

by kyllo 11y ago

Java is a bad language to work in because it's not expressive, not because it protects programmers (which it doesn't). Compared to C/C++, yes it does. Java protects you from out-of-bounds array access, uninitialized access, buffer overflows, use-after-free, double-free, etc etc.

hawleyal 11y ago
So, basically nothing in real world domain. The protections are basic at best. The most common errors are runtime exceptions, zero protection offered. YMMV.
- kyllo 11y ago
  The Heartbleed Bug[1] sure felt like a real world domain problem to me. If OpenSSL were written in a memory-safe language like Java it would not have happened. [1] http://heartbleed.com/ http://heartbleed.com/
  - antod 11y ago
    I'm sure the OpenSSL devs could've figured out some obscene way of messing with the JVM to make it happen. You know just in case you needed to cross compile it for Windows 3.1 using VMS or something.
    - kyllo 11y ago
      Well if you use sun.misc.unsafe or JNI all bets are off
kazagistar 11y ago
Memory safety is a protective feature as much as sending texts is a smartphone feature. Sure, it is nice and very useful, but almost all languages provide it, so it does not count for much these days.
- MrBuddyCasino 11y ago
  Thats how it should be, but the frequency of C/C++ threads on HN and the discussions about memory safety that will inevitably follow unfortunately paint a different picture. God I hope Rust will shoot C++ in the backyard and put it out of its misery.