4 ms·
People bring up postfix all the time in this context because supposedly nobody has ever found a memory safety vulnerability in it. Presumably this is supposed t
by jaas 2y ago
People bring up postfix all the time in this context because supposedly nobody has ever found a memory safety vulnerability in it. Presumably this is supposed to make the point that it is possible to write complex programs in C safely.
The reason people know this about postfix and keep bringing this one specific example up is because it's so unusual! It's an example that almost stands alone, it's extraordinary.
I don't think this is making the point about the safety of C that you think it is.
There is a mountain of evidence suggesting that C is dangerous, particularly for network services, and one possible example to the contrary doesn't change that.
- landmarker11 2y ago[dead]
- maxbond 2y agoThat's a bummer honestly, I would encourage you not to let Internet flamewars color your decisions about what languages you might learn. The well is seriously poisoned with regards to Rust in this community. That's more of a reflection on HN than the value of Rust as a technology or even the Rust community. Don't learn Rust if you aren't interested, it's not a one true language, but don't cheat yourself on engaging with an interest because HN struggles to discuss it amicably.
- stouset 2y agoHN is capable of discussing it just fine. Low-effort, bad faith posts getting downvoted into oblivion is the system working as intended. GP is obstinately failing to grasp the difference between “can” and “should”. Networked services can be securely written in C. Networked services should not be written in C. There are people who can operate motor vehicles safely at speeds regularly in excess of 100mph. People should not do so on public roads.
- asdask 2y ago[flagged]