3 ms·
You're quite right, it's important to set the context. But no matter what context you pick, your choice is costly: * We're going to stick with C and its stand
by sevensor 8y ago
You're quite right, it's important to set the context. But no matter what context you pick, your choice is costly:
* We're going to stick with C and its standard library: lots of room to continue to make errors.
* We're going to stick with C, but it's OK to consider an alternate implementation of strings: the C standard, the standard library, and lots of other C libraries are full of functions that deal in char* strings, so you're stuck with them. Also, runtime overhead increases.
* We're willing to consider other languages: other languages have compiler overhead, semantic overhead, runtime overhead, or all three. Also, you still have to interoperate with C.
- pjmlp 8y agoEven as advocate of mostly safe systems languages I don't see a way of replacing C in the context of UNIX based platforms. So the main issue is how to make C devs actually adopt some kind of safer C dialect and migrate towards it.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jstimpfle 8y agoBarely related, I had a good laugh when Ori Bernstein (creator of Myrddin, look them up) was asked, "So, is your language memory safe?". -"No, it's memory dangerous". I can't quite tell why, but I found it kind of insightful and it made me feel a little better about my own inclination to work on lower levels.
- pjmlp 8y agoMyrddin looks interesting, thanks for sharing. And I also find funny the remark. :)