6 ms·

For people downvoting, could you please explain which part of this statement you agree or disagree with?

by Aeolos 3y ago

mxkopy 3y ago
[flagged]
- raverbashing 3y ago
  > C is syntactic sugar around assembly It isn't As an example, see how C 'int', 'short', 'long' or whatever becomes actual different types > just admit you're not interested in computers I have the popcorn ready already for when the next C "hotshot" shoots himself in the foot yet again because he thinks a chainsaw without an emergency brake is just more fun
  - peteradio 3y ago
    > chainsaw without an emergency brake is just more fun Fun and fast!
- bcrosby95 3y ago
  > C is syntactic sugar around assembly. The C abstract machine, and the undefined behavior shenanigans compilers are pulling off says otherwise.
- oconnore 3y ago
  But assembly _is_ outdated, at least for the purpose of authoring large community software projects.
- callalex 3y ago
  I want to create software that doesn’t harm users. That doesn’t at all imply that I’m not interested in computers. In fact guaranteeing safety for users shows a profound interest in computers.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- bigbillheck 3y ago
  > C is syntactic sugar around assembly. Even if this is true (and I don't believe it is), it's not useful.
- ryeights 3y ago
  All programming languages are syntactic sugar around processor instructions
eqvinox 3y ago
The design of io_uring has nothing to do with the language the Linux kernel is implemented in. And safer languages really can't provide guarantees when the issue at hand is designing a shared memory cross-executable (kernel⋄userspace) API.
- chlorion 3y ago
  Just having first class slice types, where your pointer is paired with a length, which allows for doing bounds checking automatically is a huge upgrade over C, even if it doesn't solve every other problem. Security exploits from out of bounds access should not be happening today, bounds checking is a solved problem, and has been solved for decades.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    Time to make the point that not even C authors were able to change WG14 mind on the necessity of having fat pointers. https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/vararray.pdf https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/vararray.pdf
    - winter_blue 3y ago
      That's a pretty interesting paper. Thanks for sharing it. I wonder why Dennis Ritchie, with the weight his name carries, wasn't able to push it into mainstream implementation...
      - pjmlp 3y ago
        Because once a language is managed by ISO, that doesn't matter, the author gets one vote like everyone else. So this shows how the majority of WG14 members see security in C.

For people downvoting, could you please explain which part of this statement you agree or disagree with?

by Aeolos 3y ago

For people downvoting, could you please explain which part of this statement you agree or disagree with?

mxkopy 3y ago

[flagged]

raverbashing 3y ago
> C is syntactic sugar around assembly It isn't As an example, see how C 'int', 'short', 'long' or whatever becomes actual different types > just admit you're not interested in computers I have the popcorn ready already for when the next C "hotshot" shoots himself in the foot yet again because he thinks a chainsaw without an emergency brake is just more fun
- peteradio 3y ago
  > chainsaw without an emergency brake is just more fun Fun and fast!
bcrosby95 3y ago
> C is syntactic sugar around assembly. The C abstract machine, and the undefined behavior shenanigans compilers are pulling off says otherwise.
oconnore 3y ago
But assembly _is_ outdated, at least for the purpose of authoring large community software projects.
callalex 3y ago
I want to create software that doesn’t harm users. That doesn’t at all imply that I’m not interested in computers. In fact guaranteeing safety for users shows a profound interest in computers.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
bigbillheck 3y ago
> C is syntactic sugar around assembly. Even if this is true (and I don't believe it is), it's not useful.
ryeights 3y ago
All programming languages are syntactic sugar around processor instructions

eqvinox 3y ago

The design of io_uring has nothing to do with the language the Linux kernel is implemented in. And safer languages really can't provide guarantees when the issue at hand is designing a shared memory cross-executable (kernel⋄userspace) API.

chlorion 3y ago
Just having first class slice types, where your pointer is paired with a length, which allows for doing bounds checking automatically is a huge upgrade over C, even if it doesn't solve every other problem. Security exploits from out of bounds access should not be happening today, bounds checking is a solved problem, and has been solved for decades.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Time to make the point that not even C authors were able to change WG14 mind on the necessity of having fat pointers. https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/vararray.pdf https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/vararray.pdf
  - winter_blue 3y ago
    That's a pretty interesting paper. Thanks for sharing it. I wonder why Dennis Ritchie, with the weight his name carries, wasn't able to push it into mainstream implementation...
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      Because once a language is managed by ISO, that doesn't matter, the author gets one vote like everyone else. So this shows how the majority of WG14 members see security in C.