4 ms·

I really have to disagree - I've seen and written a lot of perfectly safe C code. There are a lot of good reasons not to use C but that one's a rapdily expandin

I really have to disagree - I've seen and written a lot of perfectly safe C code. There are a lot of good reasons not to use C but that one's a rapdily expanding fallacy. There is something missing from these discussions.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
"There is something missing from these discussions." The reasons for the gap between the condition of most C code and what you describe. Plus how to close that gap with lower effort than just getting them to use Ada, Component Pascal, Go, Rust, etc. I am keeping some notes on these discussions. Remembering you and TickleSteve in mind for the eventual roundtable discussion on Doing C Right With Ease (TM). pjmpl's list of safety tricks in the reply to you looks interesting, too. Once a basic strategy forms, then tooling can be designed to analyze conformance to it with helpful error messages and justifications. Built into IDE running in background as developer programs.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  Well, it's not that I haven't thought about how to write a paper on the subject. But frankly, the timbre of these discussions leads me to believe I'd simply be defending that for hours on end and I just don't wanna fool with it. The sheer rush to judgement is enough to make me think I'm sort of out of my depth in the ability to actually debate this properly. Part of my desire to say anything is trying to get the color and shape of that. Plus, I'd rather not break anonymity, and I (amusingly) don't own any code of consequence that could demonstrate the principles - it's all owned by my employers. Something like that - if I can't visualize the end-game, I probably have no business starting in it. Plus, I feel somewhat strongly that the languages designed to replace C should probably be given a chance. Throw in that the compiler people, in chasing absolutely performant executables, have left old code to rot... I'm also a bit feeling out of my depth. I can more do it than talk about it.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

"There is something missing from these discussions." The reasons for the gap between the condition of most C code and what you describe. Plus how to close that gap with lower effort than just getting them to use Ada, Component Pascal, Go, Rust, etc. I am keeping some notes on these discussions. Remembering you and TickleSteve in mind for the eventual roundtable discussion on Doing C Right With Ease (TM). pjmpl's list of safety tricks in the reply to you looks interesting, too. Once a basic strategy forms, then tooling can be designed to analyze conformance to it with helpful error messages and justifications. Built into IDE running in background as developer programs.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
Well, it's not that I haven't thought about how to write a paper on the subject. But frankly, the timbre of these discussions leads me to believe I'd simply be defending that for hours on end and I just don't wanna fool with it. The sheer rush to judgement is enough to make me think I'm sort of out of my depth in the ability to actually debate this properly. Part of my desire to say anything is trying to get the color and shape of that. Plus, I'd rather not break anonymity, and I (amusingly) don't own any code of consequence that could demonstrate the principles - it's all owned by my employers. Something like that - if I can't visualize the end-game, I probably have no business starting in it. Plus, I feel somewhat strongly that the languages designed to replace C should probably be given a chance. Throw in that the compiler people, in chasing absolutely performant executables, have left old code to rot... I'm also a bit feeling out of my depth. I can more do it than talk about it.