3 ms·
Fine. I agree. Less is better. Now, I don't want to have a c vs rust like discussion, I think we will agree in fact mostly. But, all I was saying in the beginn
by int0x80 8y ago
Fine. I agree. Less is better.
Now, I don't want to have a c vs rust like discussion, I think we will agree in fact mostly.
But, all I was saying in the beginning (and I later digressed) is that just blaming 'C memory model' is not fair.
(Dramatization) "Hey, boss, yes... an RCE, what a pitty. Yeah, missing check. But don't blame me. Is C it is at fault". That is just not realistic/ridiculous. Is like saying is the parents of Denis Ritchie that are at fault here.
- pjmlp 8y agoIt is fair blaming C memory model because safer systems programming languages exist since 1961, and C only got where it is thanks for Bell Labs not being able to sell UNIX for the first 10 years of its existence. Even Multics had less exploits than earlier UNIX versions, as stated on a DoD report about inexistence of memory corruption issues thanks to PL/I. If you bother to read the early C history document written by Richie, they were aware of such shortcomings and thus lint was born in 1979. A tool that to this day many devs still ignore. As for alternative languages I haven't named a single one on this thread. There are plenty to chose from since 1961.
- int0x80 8y agoInteresting, I will read the article, thanks for mentioning it. As for alternatives, I was just giving examples, you didn't say anything yes.