3 ms·

> the invariants you have to keep track of are relatively simple (things like 0<=i<L.) If maintaining these invariants were so simple, why would the smartest p

> the invariants you have to keep track of are relatively simple (things like 0<=i<L.) If maintaining these invariants were so simple, why would the smartest people in the industry have so much trouble doing so? Humans cannot consistently write correct C, not even the ones who believe they can. We have decades of evidence. > Most languages replace these with multi-dimensional string based hashmaps that have much more complex invariants to keep track of and similar consequences for failing to do so. This take reflects a profound ignorance of the relative severity of different kinds of software defect. When you get an array bound wrong in Java or Rust, you get an exception or a panic. Your program exits and restarts. You get a ticket for fixing the bug. Life goes on. When you get an array bound wrong in C, you open the door for a nefarious actor to gain control over everything that your program can access. These aren't similar consequences. They're not even on the same planet of consequences. C apologists are like apologists for asbestos and lead paint.

notwokeno 4y ago
My point is that they can't consistently write correct software in any language. Javascript for example has similar issues where if you're not careful about which keys in a hashmap you write to you can create situations that allow for all kinds of things including arbitrary code execution. Modern C compilers/runtimes also have bounds checking (although I've never used it) like java if you want to use it. Sure there's some improvement but it's not nearly as extreme as it's made out to be.
- quotemstr 4y ago
  It's true that humans will inevitably produce software with defects. There are differences in the impacts of these defects. > Javascript for example has similar issues where if you're not careful about which keys in a hashmap you write to you can create situations that allow for all kinds of things including arbitrary code execution. Not without eval() you can't. > Modern C compilers/runtimes also have bounds checking No, they don't. There are C-like languages (e.g. C++/CLI) that do, and you can use containers, but no, plain C cannot do bounds checking. There's no room in the ABI for it, at least not without CHERI or ASAN. > although I've never used it One of the most dangerous things in the world is giving powerful tools to people who don't know that they shouldn't use them.
- svnt 4y ago
  > My point is that they can’t consistently write correct software in any language. Javascript for example I don’t think Javascript is the counterexample you want to use as a good language. It is like C where safety is traded for flexibility. If people can’t write correct software in any language, the language designers can help, which is exactly what the Rust designers did. It’s not great for everyone because now all the scar tissue that great C devs have around what near-fatal errors they’ve made previously has lost some of its value.
lelanthran 4y ago
> Humans cannot consistently write correct C, So? Humans cannot consistently write correct code in any language. > When you get an array bound wrong in C, you open the door for a nefarious actor to gain control over everything that your program can access. What's really interesting to me is how Heartbleed (the largest example of getting an array bound wrong) was orders of magnitude less expensive to fix than Log4j, and yet it was Log4j that resulted in gauranteed RCE, not Heartbleed. > C apologists are like apologists for asbestos and lead paint. Let's not go spilling hyperbole all down our shirt. I get the feeling that a lot of people comparing C to things that kill have never worked in life-critical situations, the systems of which ran C for decades and decades, and never appeared to have lost very many lives in the process. Military, munitions, healthcare machines ... I can't remember any of them losing lives because of a misfeature in the C programming language, and yet there you are, proudly proclaiming to the word that C is like Asbestos, which has taken peoples lives. Get a grip.

notwokeno 4y ago

My point is that they can't consistently write correct software in any language. Javascript for example has similar issues where if you're not careful about which keys in a hashmap you write to you can create situations that allow for all kinds of things including arbitrary code execution. Modern C compilers/runtimes also have bounds checking (although I've never used it) like java if you want to use it. Sure there's some improvement but it's not nearly as extreme as it's made out to be.

quotemstr 4y ago
It's true that humans will inevitably produce software with defects. There are differences in the impacts of these defects. > Javascript for example has similar issues where if you're not careful about which keys in a hashmap you write to you can create situations that allow for all kinds of things including arbitrary code execution. Not without eval() you can't. > Modern C compilers/runtimes also have bounds checking No, they don't. There are C-like languages (e.g. C++/CLI) that do, and you can use containers, but no, plain C cannot do bounds checking. There's no room in the ABI for it, at least not without CHERI or ASAN. > although I've never used it One of the most dangerous things in the world is giving powerful tools to people who don't know that they shouldn't use them.
svnt 4y ago
> My point is that they can’t consistently write correct software in any language. Javascript for example I don’t think Javascript is the counterexample you want to use as a good language. It is like C where safety is traded for flexibility. If people can’t write correct software in any language, the language designers can help, which is exactly what the Rust designers did. It’s not great for everyone because now all the scar tissue that great C devs have around what near-fatal errors they’ve made previously has lost some of its value.

lelanthran 4y ago

> Humans cannot consistently write correct C, So? Humans cannot consistently write correct code in any language. > When you get an array bound wrong in C, you open the door for a nefarious actor to gain control over everything that your program can access. What's really interesting to me is how Heartbleed (the largest example of getting an array bound wrong) was orders of magnitude less expensive to fix than Log4j, and yet it was Log4j that resulted in gauranteed RCE, not Heartbleed. > C apologists are like apologists for asbestos and lead paint. Let's not go spilling hyperbole all down our shirt. I get the feeling that a lot of people comparing C to things that kill have never worked in life-critical situations, the systems of which ran C for decades and decades, and never appeared to have lost very many lives in the process. Military, munitions, healthcare machines ... I can't remember any of them losing lives because of a misfeature in the C programming language, and yet there you are, proudly proclaiming to the word that C is like Asbestos, which has taken peoples lives. Get a grip.