5 ms·
TL;DR: It's better to have buffer overflows and use-after-free bugs that still work in 50 years than to have secure code you may need to migrate.
by cestith 7y ago
TL;DR: It's better to have buffer overflows and use-after-free bugs that still work in 50 years than to have secure code you may need to migrate.
- LeifCarrotson 7y agoI think you're being sarcastic? But I also think the article genuinely believes that's true. In 50 years there will be C programmers who know how to fix a buffer overflow, compile, and run your program. Conversely, a program written in a language and dependent on a package repository that only existed from 2017-2024 will likely never find an academic willing to invest the thousands of hours in learning that legacy code, digging through archives, and making that program run again.
- cestith 7y agoI'm not being at all sarcastic. That's what I read from the article. I never said whether or not I agree with it. From my tone you might guess correctly that I don't.
- comex 7y agoIndeed. But in the meantime you have to worry about getting pwned by the buffer overflow.
- kelnos 7y ago> In 50 years there will be C programmers who know how to fix a buffer overflow, compile, and run your program. I don't think that's a given. In 2070, C might be today's COBOL. There are a few people who know it, and are paid obscene amounts of money to maintain aging systems to keep them from falling apart. Now, there's certainly more C code now than there was COBOL code at COBOL's peak, but that's no predicting the future. What I'd call "modern" computing and software development has only been around for 30-40 years or so. In 50 years I expect things to be radically different.