4 ms·
Indeed it is much better to implement it in a language such as C or C++ that has historically had almost no security issues and has very few pitfalls.
by onlydeadheroes 7y ago
Indeed it is much better to implement it in a language such as C or C++ that has historically had almost no security issues and has very few pitfalls.
- detaro 7y agoPlease don't attack arguments the parent comment didn't make.
- onlydeadheroes 7y agoOf course, because security issues and language pitfalls have no bearing on cryptographic implementations.
- detaro 7y ago"Dynamic languages have issues" does not say "all other languages are good".
- wayneftw 7y agoIn this context, where the commenter is replying to an article about a dynamic language and their comment recommends non-dynamic languages? Yeah it kinda does say something like that. Anyway, could you please not speak to people here as if you’re a moderator and leave moderation to the staff? Thanks a bunch!
- onlydeadheroes 7y agoHe is saying dynamic languages crash and burn in this context. Specifying "dynamic" does strongly suggest non-dynamic languages do not crash and burn in this context.
- jsjohnst 7y agoOr said another way (from the HN guidelines): > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
- api 7y agoC's weak type system proves my point. Safer code can be written in C++ IF you take advantage of its type system to implement safety features, but the language doesn't force you to do this so there is much insecure C++ code around. Go, Rust, Java, C#, Haskell, etc. are examples of relatively safe languages with type systems that mostly keep the foot guns in the foot gun cabinet.
- zzzcpan 7y ago> with type systems that mostly keep the foot guns in the foot gun cabinet They don't compared to dynamic languages. Those type systems are only an improvement compared to C and C++, not to dynamic languages.