6 ms·

> Oh no, no, no! Some people may reasonably, with some extreme care and diligence, maybe try to claim they can write safe and UB-free C code. If stars align pro

by lj3 9y ago

> Oh no, no, no! Some people may reasonably, with some extreme care and diligence, maybe try to claim they can write safe and UB-free C code. If stars align properly. Why the sarcasm?

akavel 9y ago
I'm afraid I was not being sarcastic. Sorry. This is a totally honest and dead serious opinion from a long time C & C++ user. ("stars aligning" here means "you must also have luck". As I said: see SQLite.)
- FRex 9y ago
  Then just delete your entire OS or at least your browser, don't force yourself to use C and C++ software. Seriously. I'll let you keep LLVM so you can play with Rust. There's disliking language or the boilerplate it forces on the programmer which I can REALLY understand in case of these two and there's being a jerk and an idiot and saying any C++ program that isn't few lines is broken by the UB, you need stars aligning to write safe C, they are impossible to write anything substantial, safe and useful in, etc. and anyone who tells you otherwise is implicitly a very bad programmer who does their job wrong and endangers people.
  - cyphar 9y ago
    I'm not sure I agree with the amount of hyperbole in the original post, but you must be joking if you want to claim that browsers or OSes are "safe" in the Rust sense of the word. Use after frees and numerous other memory bugs are discovered all the time in C/C++ programs (including kernels and browsers). This isn't an imaginary problem. Then combine multithreading and you've got a whole extra level of possible issues. Rust does solve many of these problems, and you can prove it does so mathematically. I understand why people don't like the use of the term "safe" because it feels like a value judgement. But I think people's egos really should be a bit less fragile when discussing language choices. > Then just delete your entire OS or at least your browser, don't force yourself to use C and C++ software. With RedoxOS you actually could do that in the near future once it supports some more hardware. The kernel and entire userland (with graphics) is written in Rust. And they did it in 2 years. If nothing else you have to admit that there are some very talented engineers using Rust.
    - FRex 9y ago
      Your point being exactly what? Don't put words in my mouth because I never claimed C and C++ are as safe as Rust, just that they are good enough for millions, including you, to rely on daily with their lives and that Rust itself relies on some C++ (LLVM). I'd even say that yes, C is the least friendly and most spartan language and C++ is the most complex and hard language that are in wide use nowdays but that wasn't the OP's claim. The OP's claim was ridiculous and on the level of opinion people have of Java applets ("totally unsafe", "useless", etc.). These people who have such opinions of them don't run them in their browsers so you should not run any C or C++ on your machine either or you are clearly overdramatizing. Mathematical provability and technical excellence has sadly little to do with adoption - see where JavaScript, Erlang, Haskell, OCalm, Modula, etc. ended up and tell me every language got what it deserved based on its own merit. Fanboying over Rust and RedoxOS (it being impressive or not is besides the point) won't fix all that "doable if stars align C" and "humanly impossible C++ that has UB even after few lines" code out there in the government, power plants (including nuclear), infrastructure, stores, embedded, banks, ... Egos have nothing to do with it. I dislike JavaScript, Java and C# personally (not for any technical reasons but due to my tastes) but if I've seen someone saying the are useless and everything written in them is broken I'd call BS. I'm similarly fond of Free Pascal with LCL for personal GUI toys but if someone said it'll take over the world and destroy Qt and GTK+ behemoths I'd also call BS. Hell, I'd defend your precious little Rust if someone said something stupid about it. There's factual critique (which I have lots of myself and I don't recommend C or C++ to new hobbyist programmers but Python3), there's personal taste (that you mustn't camouflage as technical opinions) and then there's pedal to the metal "I hate the language so it's totally useless and no human can use it" BS like the OP's comment. Rust supposedly targets C and C++ programmers so it shouldn't be acceptable to shit all over their tools and by extension their work, telling them they are stupid for liking these languages and are doing everything wrong as an engineer. The fact that such BS is disallowed in official Rust spaces is really telling of how idiotic and ridiculous it is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14755394 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14755394
      - akavel 9y ago
        Regarding my initial outburst, I'd like to clarify that it was specifically against a comment claiming that rewriting C code in ("modern" or not, whatever) C++ is the safest choice if someone is worried about security of a C codebase. I didn't actually even say a word about Rust. The C vs. C++ claim there was already enough to make me want to cry loud.
  - akavel 9y ago
    Ah, but I never called to delete any C/C++-based code! That's a strawman from you here. Also, especially I didn't say it's impossible to write anything substantial and/or useful in C++, oh, most certainly it is! But truly, I did and do claim it's humanly impossible to write anything safe in those. As to doing a programmer's job wrong, sorry if you got such impression. Wasn't my intention. C++ is powerful, and in many cases, the gains of using it overpower the risks. As to endangering people, now that's a different topic, and there are measures to protect people possible even in case of unreliable systems. But anyway that's really niche, your Windows/Linux/OSX laptop/PC won't really endanger people until you start hitting them with it, to first approximation. In the other case, like medical software, logic bugs can be I suppose orders of magnitude more dangerous to people than UB-related etc. bugs. I'm not saying C++ kills people. But I am saying it is producing inherently buggy software, on some level. I'd say it this way: improvements that Rust, Idris, Haskell & many other new languages (and also some old ones, actually, like reportedly Modula, Ada, etc.) try to bring to the table, are similar to what procedural programming or type systems brought over assembly. Resisting those improvements is... strange to me. [edit: I noticed I wasn't allowed to reply to some comments downstream a while before. I think this may be some kind of a signal for me to just STFU and drop the ball; even if not, I decide to just treat it so, I've said more than enough words already probably. Actually, biggest outburst of my posts on HN ever. I'm starting to think I might be having some kind of a PTSD w.r.t. C++. Anyone knows of some good therapy centers for recovering C++ veterans? :) ]
    - kazinator 9y ago
      You can write large C++ programs that are quite safe, using only higher level abstractions (no pointers or explicit memory management). This doesn't require any fancy new C++; code written to C++98 (first ISO C++ standard) will do it just fine. For exmaple, in C++, we can put two strings together to make a new string without worrying about whether we have a buffer large enough to hold the result, and whether null termination is ensured and so on, or whether or not the original source strings are damaged in the process (they are not), or whether that memory will disappear when we return to the caller. It's just str1 + str2. I'm no C++ advocate, bu the fact is C++ code can look like a scripting language and be safe like one. C++ also has tools for isolating and managing the C-like semantics that a C++ program might contain. So even to clump together C and C++ as "C/C++" is not well considered. There isn't a "C/C++" language. If you post a message about C/C++ in the comp.lang.c newsgroup, put on your flame-proof asbestos underwear first.

by lj3 9y ago

> Oh no, no, no! Some people may reasonably, with some extreme care and diligence, maybe try to claim they can write safe and UB-free C code. If stars align properly. Why the sarcasm?

akavel 9y ago

I'm afraid I was not being sarcastic. Sorry. This is a totally honest and dead serious opinion from a long time C & C++ user. ("stars aligning" here means "you must also have luck". As I said: see SQLite.)

FRex 9y ago
Then just delete your entire OS or at least your browser, don't force yourself to use C and C++ software. Seriously. I'll let you keep LLVM so you can play with Rust. There's disliking language or the boilerplate it forces on the programmer which I can REALLY understand in case of these two and there's being a jerk and an idiot and saying any C++ program that isn't few lines is broken by the UB, you need stars aligning to write safe C, they are impossible to write anything substantial, safe and useful in, etc. and anyone who tells you otherwise is implicitly a very bad programmer who does their job wrong and endangers people.
- cyphar 9y ago
  I'm not sure I agree with the amount of hyperbole in the original post, but you must be joking if you want to claim that browsers or OSes are "safe" in the Rust sense of the word. Use after frees and numerous other memory bugs are discovered all the time in C/C++ programs (including kernels and browsers). This isn't an imaginary problem. Then combine multithreading and you've got a whole extra level of possible issues. Rust does solve many of these problems, and you can prove it does so mathematically. I understand why people don't like the use of the term "safe" because it feels like a value judgement. But I think people's egos really should be a bit less fragile when discussing language choices. > Then just delete your entire OS or at least your browser, don't force yourself to use C and C++ software. With RedoxOS you actually could do that in the near future once it supports some more hardware. The kernel and entire userland (with graphics) is written in Rust. And they did it in 2 years. If nothing else you have to admit that there are some very talented engineers using Rust.
  - FRex 9y ago
    Your point being exactly what? Don't put words in my mouth because I never claimed C and C++ are as safe as Rust, just that they are good enough for millions, including you, to rely on daily with their lives and that Rust itself relies on some C++ (LLVM). I'd even say that yes, C is the least friendly and most spartan language and C++ is the most complex and hard language that are in wide use nowdays but that wasn't the OP's claim. The OP's claim was ridiculous and on the level of opinion people have of Java applets ("totally unsafe", "useless", etc.). These people who have such opinions of them don't run them in their browsers so you should not run any C or C++ on your machine either or you are clearly overdramatizing. Mathematical provability and technical excellence has sadly little to do with adoption - see where JavaScript, Erlang, Haskell, OCalm, Modula, etc. ended up and tell me every language got what it deserved based on its own merit. Fanboying over Rust and RedoxOS (it being impressive or not is besides the point) won't fix all that "doable if stars align C" and "humanly impossible C++ that has UB even after few lines" code out there in the government, power plants (including nuclear), infrastructure, stores, embedded, banks, ... Egos have nothing to do with it. I dislike JavaScript, Java and C# personally (not for any technical reasons but due to my tastes) but if I've seen someone saying the are useless and everything written in them is broken I'd call BS. I'm similarly fond of Free Pascal with LCL for personal GUI toys but if someone said it'll take over the world and destroy Qt and GTK+ behemoths I'd also call BS. Hell, I'd defend your precious little Rust if someone said something stupid about it. There's factual critique (which I have lots of myself and I don't recommend C or C++ to new hobbyist programmers but Python3), there's personal taste (that you mustn't camouflage as technical opinions) and then there's pedal to the metal "I hate the language so it's totally useless and no human can use it" BS like the OP's comment. Rust supposedly targets C and C++ programmers so it shouldn't be acceptable to shit all over their tools and by extension their work, telling them they are stupid for liking these languages and are doing everything wrong as an engineer. The fact that such BS is disallowed in official Rust spaces is really telling of how idiotic and ridiculous it is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14755394 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14755394
    - akavel 9y ago
      Regarding my initial outburst, I'd like to clarify that it was specifically against a comment claiming that rewriting C code in ("modern" or not, whatever) C++ is the safest choice if someone is worried about security of a C codebase. I didn't actually even say a word about Rust. The C vs. C++ claim there was already enough to make me want to cry loud.
- akavel 9y ago
  Ah, but I never called to delete any C/C++-based code! That's a strawman from you here. Also, especially I didn't say it's impossible to write anything substantial and/or useful in C++, oh, most certainly it is! But truly, I did and do claim it's humanly impossible to write anything safe in those. As to doing a programmer's job wrong, sorry if you got such impression. Wasn't my intention. C++ is powerful, and in many cases, the gains of using it overpower the risks. As to endangering people, now that's a different topic, and there are measures to protect people possible even in case of unreliable systems. But anyway that's really niche, your Windows/Linux/OSX laptop/PC won't really endanger people until you start hitting them with it, to first approximation. In the other case, like medical software, logic bugs can be I suppose orders of magnitude more dangerous to people than UB-related etc. bugs. I'm not saying C++ kills people. But I am saying it is producing inherently buggy software, on some level. I'd say it this way: improvements that Rust, Idris, Haskell & many other new languages (and also some old ones, actually, like reportedly Modula, Ada, etc.) try to bring to the table, are similar to what procedural programming or type systems brought over assembly. Resisting those improvements is... strange to me. [edit: I noticed I wasn't allowed to reply to some comments downstream a while before. I think this may be some kind of a signal for me to just STFU and drop the ball; even if not, I decide to just treat it so, I've said more than enough words already probably. Actually, biggest outburst of my posts on HN ever. I'm starting to think I might be having some kind of a PTSD w.r.t. C++. Anyone knows of some good therapy centers for recovering C++ veterans? :) ]
  - kazinator 9y ago
    You can write large C++ programs that are quite safe, using only higher level abstractions (no pointers or explicit memory management). This doesn't require any fancy new C++; code written to C++98 (first ISO C++ standard) will do it just fine. For exmaple, in C++, we can put two strings together to make a new string without worrying about whether we have a buffer large enough to hold the result, and whether null termination is ensured and so on, or whether or not the original source strings are damaged in the process (they are not), or whether that memory will disappear when we return to the caller. It's just str1 + str2. I'm no C++ advocate, bu the fact is C++ code can look like a scripting language and be safe like one. C++ also has tools for isolating and managing the C-like semantics that a C++ program might contain. So even to clump together C and C++ as "C/C++" is not well considered. There isn't a "C/C++" language. If you post a message about C/C++ in the comp.lang.c newsgroup, put on your flame-proof asbestos underwear first.