7 ms·

>Bad programming shops taught them that way, that is why. Most of these programming languages when they were created did not have online connectivity or hacker

>Bad programming shops taught them that way, that is why. Most of these programming languages when they were created did not have online connectivity or hackers as a threat. It would be ridiculous to expect them to protect against a threat that didn't exist like calling Japanese idiots for not making nuclear defenses and their bad teachers are the reason. In embedded hardware I still don't see the benefit for memory safety.

pjmlp 5y ago
Security and safety in programming languages is a know issue since the 1950's, as anyone that actually cares about this subject is aware. In fact it was one of the sales pitch for Burroughs (1961), still being sold by Unisys, which not surprisingly keeps using its safety over classical POSIX as sales pitch.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  They made banking computers, seems relevant there, and also typewriters from what I briefly looked at. Were the typewriters memory safe too? If they were not, what was the benefit, and if they weren't do you see my point? By the forces of the market, POSIX won because it had more useful features. Personal computers where you were expected to load software yourself and were not connected to any threats? I do not see any reason for me to care about that even today, and its not because programmers had bad habits, they made reasonable tradeoffs, making worst performing software for nonexistent threats of that time is not teaching them bad programming, over engineering for nonexistent threats is bad programming. In non networked devices, I still see no benefit.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    POSIX won thanks to free beer, had AT&T been allowed to sell it from day one, history would have been quite differently. It is like 1 euro shops, quality is not what customers are looking for.
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      No, it won because it was better. You ignore every question I ask about how memory safety is useful or relevant for those uses.
      - pjmlp 5y ago
        Because UNIX won the same way people flock to 1 euro shops, quality has nothing to do with it, free beer is what counts. Had UNIX been sold like every other OS from the same decade, and it would have been a footnote on the history of OS. When one is thirsty any liquid goes down regardless of the taste.
        GhettoComputers 5y ago
        Good idea, lets ban Linux and all the free software, and make all free ones paid.
tempodox 5y ago
> In embedded hardware I still don't see the benefit for memory safety. If anything, safety considerations in embedded devices are even more important than elsewhere, if only for the fact that those devices typically don't get patched. It has to work right the first time. F*cking this up can have dire consequences, depending on what the device is doing.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  Thats possible, but I don't see that in practice, I could die any second, but my fan controller, my heating pad, and my camera lens are not being hacked or broken frome memory issues.

pjmlp 5y ago

Security and safety in programming languages is a know issue since the 1950's, as anyone that actually cares about this subject is aware. In fact it was one of the sales pitch for Burroughs (1961), still being sold by Unisys, which not surprisingly keeps using its safety over classical POSIX as sales pitch.

GhettoComputers 5y ago
They made banking computers, seems relevant there, and also typewriters from what I briefly looked at. Were the typewriters memory safe too? If they were not, what was the benefit, and if they weren't do you see my point? By the forces of the market, POSIX won because it had more useful features. Personal computers where you were expected to load software yourself and were not connected to any threats? I do not see any reason for me to care about that even today, and its not because programmers had bad habits, they made reasonable tradeoffs, making worst performing software for nonexistent threats of that time is not teaching them bad programming, over engineering for nonexistent threats is bad programming. In non networked devices, I still see no benefit.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  POSIX won thanks to free beer, had AT&T been allowed to sell it from day one, history would have been quite differently. It is like 1 euro shops, quality is not what customers are looking for.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    No, it won because it was better. You ignore every question I ask about how memory safety is useful or relevant for those uses.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      Because UNIX won the same way people flock to 1 euro shops, quality has nothing to do with it, free beer is what counts. Had UNIX been sold like every other OS from the same decade, and it would have been a footnote on the history of OS. When one is thirsty any liquid goes down regardless of the taste.
      - GhettoComputers 5y ago
        Good idea, lets ban Linux and all the free software, and make all free ones paid.

tempodox 5y ago

> In embedded hardware I still don't see the benefit for memory safety. If anything, safety considerations in embedded devices are even more important than elsewhere, if only for the fact that those devices typically don't get patched. It has to work right the first time. F*cking this up can have dire consequences, depending on what the device is doing.

GhettoComputers 5y ago
Thats possible, but I don't see that in practice, I could die any second, but my fan controller, my heating pad, and my camera lens are not being hacked or broken frome memory issues.