5 ms·

I'm sure it inflates one's ego but the chances that they've avoided writing any exploitable security vulnerabilities is almost zero.

codr4life 10y ago
Show me a software stack without those kinds of bugs; they're all written in C somewhere down the line; enormous amounts of complicated C, written by coders of varying competence. At least in my stack I can keep it simple and fix anything that needs fixing.
- nothrabannosir 10y ago
  He/she meant: two programmers of equal skill and security conscientiousness will create less exploitable security vulnerabilities per "unit of functionality", using C and <memory safe language> respectively, ceteris paribus. "Easier languages attract less skilled devs", "higher level languages allow you to create more complex programs", yada yada. Could all be true, but it's besides the point.
  - _pmf_ 10y ago
    > "Easier languages attract less skilled devs", "higher level languages allow you to create more complex programs", yada yada. Could all be true, but it's besides the point. For the armchair discourse it's beside the point, but for real-world development, it's what matters the most.
- lmm 10y ago
  Not everything has to come down to C. OCaml is self-hosting I believe. And even if it did, rates matter.
greenshackle2 10y ago
I didn't mean to make the point so C-centric. I'm not just talking about C programmers. I don't think we should all write C all the time. I went back to C and Lisp in my spare time because I'm already invested in those languages, between C itself, and CPython. The common feeling I've seen repeated is doing OOP for a while then getting tired of it, and casting it off. > I'm sure it inflates one's ego I'm sure that's true for some, but it would be shortsighted to think all programmers who dislike OOP are just full of themselves and don't have any valid insights.

5 ms·

I'm sure it inflates one's ego but the chances that they've avoided writing any exploitable security vulnerabilities is almost zero.

by xenadu02 10y ago

codr4life 10y ago
Show me a software stack without those kinds of bugs; they're all written in C somewhere down the line; enormous amounts of complicated C, written by coders of varying competence. At least in my stack I can keep it simple and fix anything that needs fixing.
- nothrabannosir 10y ago
  He/she meant: two programmers of equal skill and security conscientiousness will create less exploitable security vulnerabilities per "unit of functionality", using C and <memory safe language> respectively, ceteris paribus. "Easier languages attract less skilled devs", "higher level languages allow you to create more complex programs", yada yada. Could all be true, but it's besides the point.
  - _pmf_ 10y ago
    > "Easier languages attract less skilled devs", "higher level languages allow you to create more complex programs", yada yada. Could all be true, but it's besides the point. For the armchair discourse it's beside the point, but for real-world development, it's what matters the most.
- lmm 10y ago
  Not everything has to come down to C. OCaml is self-hosting I believe. And even if it did, rates matter.
greenshackle2 10y ago
I didn't mean to make the point so C-centric. I'm not just talking about C programmers. I don't think we should all write C all the time. I went back to C and Lisp in my spare time because I'm already invested in those languages, between C itself, and CPython. The common feeling I've seen repeated is doing OOP for a while then getting tired of it, and casting it off. > I'm sure it inflates one's ego I'm sure that's true for some, but it would be shortsighted to think all programmers who dislike OOP are just full of themselves and don't have any valid insights.