4 ms·
It's pretty horrible, but it's the future unfortunately. The web is ubiquitous. Everyone knows it, and so it's much easier to scratch whatever itch you have in
by SCdF 10y ago
It's pretty horrible, but it's the future unfortunately.
The web is ubiquitous. Everyone knows it, and so it's much easier to scratch whatever itch you have in a tech you know than a scary one (C!) that you don't; building for situations you understand (your fast piece of expensive apple tech connected to your fast internet) than ones you don't.
- z3t4 10y agoWhen developing in a higher level language like JavaScript you are less prone to buffer overflow code execution vulnerabilities, witch seems to be the most common security hole.
- woodruffw 10y agoThese days, it seems like XSS/CSRF are just as common.
- wtetzner 10y agoThere are plenty of options beyond C/C++ and JavaScript.
- PeCaN 10y agoThat's a non-point. There's nothing intrinsic about higher level language that prevents security holes. There are plenty of low-level languages that are immune to buffer overflows—Ada, Rust, D† (to an extent), Oberon†, Cyclone.... D and Ada have real and important software written in them, Rust has hype, Oberon is still actively developed, Cyclone influenced new languages (particularly Rust). † Garbage collected by default
- marssaxman 10y agoThis is exactly what they said about Java in the late '90s and early 2000s, but I have never had any trouble avoiding (non-server) software written in Java, and I doubt I'll have any trouble avoiding non-web software written with web technologies, either.
- z3t4 10y agoSometimes you have to do a lot of detective work to know what technology was used to make the software. Web-tech doesn't ask you to "install Java", for example when running the "web app" with Electron or nw.js
- marssaxman 10y agoIf it ever gets good enough that I can't immediately tell when using it, I'll probably have to change my opinion.