3 ms·

I really love this powerless use of "should". If you spit on billions of lines of code, all you will get is a dry mouth. The reality defines "what is", unless y

I really love this powerless use of "should". If you spit on billions of lines of code, all you will get is a dry mouth. The reality defines "what is", unless you have lots of tanks and people under your control, in which case you can change the reality. There is tons of useful code which you will likely never encounter, that helps people accomplish their tasks every day. Do you think there is some central authority who is going to go building to building and dd if=/dev/zero every shell script they find?

abigail95 2y ago
This is a contemporary discussion, today, concerning hundreds perhaps thousands of lines of code. That's it. If someone is objecting to changes because of things like "bob;>/hacked". That is laughable, and I will continue to point and laugh. Imagine limiting URL encoding because of SQL injection. We can fix this, then fix the things that break - and then we can improve. Or we can ossify into stone. Your choice.
- PhilipRoman 2y ago
  >if you cannot handle UTF-8 anywhere anything approaching text could be, your program is malformed and should be deprecated and removed. I was referring to this. Don't get me wrong, I also would love to make sweeping changes to many things in computing. I still think it is perfectly valid to impose reasonable limitations on input even if the program could theoretically handle it - it prevents all kinds of problems at the very root (like allocating disproportionate amounts of resources, infinite timeouts, etc).