3 ms·

I didn't know that about you. However, I would say that you probably fall under UNIX-Hater nonetheless. Not that that is a bad thing, it's merely a statement ab

• nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Oh yeah, I've linked to original and ESR's interpretation of UNIX Hater Handbook. Like I said, great analysis minus that one aspect of my posts here. :) Far as recommendations, putting my name and those terms into Google gives me six hits on HN where I recommend them both. In several, I push alternatives like microkernels, SPARK, and Rust plus those if person stays with C. In reply to ZeroTier developer, I reference Code-Pointer Integrity too while pointing out he's less safe with C++ because he can't use these C features. Ironic. "Although I do wonder why Cyclone, the project that inspired Rust, wasn't on your list for memory-safe C." I get 47 hits on that as I give Morissett et al's work plenty credit. Often when someone says Rust did the dynamic safety first where I counter they got it from Cyclone. Reason I don't push Cyclone so much is it isn't actively developed any more like most safer C's. C people just ignore them. Others included Safe-C, Clay, and Vault languages although I don't think all of them were OSS'd. Many non-C languages also compiled to C to get portability and performance benefits while app gets type-checked or other checks (eg bounds). Hardly any take-up there either. At this point, I just recommend them putting work into compiler extensions that make C safer with reasonable performance hits. SAFEcode already in LLVM, too.