3 ms·

>And besides, we'll be making similar comments about more your favorite recent languages once they're 38 years old and the field of computing changes. And if yo

>And besides, we'll be making similar comments about more your favorite recent languages once they're 38 years old and the field of computing changes. And if you don't believe so, you're in for a very rude awakening. I'm not going to have a problem with critique of my $fav_lang if its designers and implementators underperform. So far they managed to do really good job after >2 decades. >This kind of disdain really should be put to rest. All it does is alienate people that were on the fence, or maintain projects with different goals in mind. I believe that languages and compilers should go way beyond just "enable things to be possible", but they also should be user friendly and be safe/sane by default. That's why I'm critiquing this chaos. Don't you see this long ass list: ">-O2 -Wall -Wformat=2 -Wconversion -Wtrampolines -Wimplicit-fallthrough \ >-U_FORTIFY_SOURCE -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 \ >-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS \ >-fstrict-flex-arrays=3 \ >-fstack-clash-protection -fstack-protector-strong \ >-Wl,-z,nodlopen -Wl,-z,noexecstack \ >-Wl,-z,relro -Wl,-z,now" It is insane. Just because someone values different things then it doesnt make it flawless.

soulbadguy 3y ago
> I believe that languages and compilers should go way beyond just "enable things to be possible", but they also should be user friendly and be safe/sane by default. Everyone one wants sane and safe default, and ease of use etc... etc... The questions here is more nuance is about should an existing ( and dare i say very successful) language navigate the need for backward compatibility with with security and UX concerns. > That's why I'm critiquing this chaos. Critiquing a design is fair. Critiquing without understanding the context and constraints around the said design is not particularly helpful and tend to rub people the wrong way. Adding platitudes like "user friendly and be safe/sane" gets old even faster. > It is insane. Not really... it's just the results of very very constrained design space. Reality is messy >
infamouscow 3y ago
You're replying to a blog post by the OpenSSF on how to harden C and C++ programs offering nothing of substance except childish remarks based entirely on your own subjective opinions. It seems like you're replying to a field of strawmen you've constructed rather than what's being said.
- infamouscow 3y ago
  > I can already see the replies that refuse to understand this point. Admittedly, it took longer than expected.

soulbadguy 3y ago

> I believe that languages and compilers should go way beyond just "enable things to be possible", but they also should be user friendly and be safe/sane by default. Everyone one wants sane and safe default, and ease of use etc... etc... The questions here is more nuance is about should an existing ( and dare i say very successful) language navigate the need for backward compatibility with with security and UX concerns. > That's why I'm critiquing this chaos. Critiquing a design is fair. Critiquing without understanding the context and constraints around the said design is not particularly helpful and tend to rub people the wrong way. Adding platitudes like "user friendly and be safe/sane" gets old even faster. > It is insane. Not really... it's just the results of very very constrained design space. Reality is messy >

infamouscow 3y ago

You're replying to a blog post by the OpenSSF on how to harden C and C++ programs offering nothing of substance except childish remarks based entirely on your own subjective opinions. It seems like you're replying to a field of strawmen you've constructed rather than what's being said.

infamouscow 3y ago
> I can already see the replies that refuse to understand this point. Admittedly, it took longer than expected.