15 ms·

Half the people in this thread seem to have missed the point. This article is not supporting 100% abstinence of these functions. It is doing exactly the opposit

Half the people in this thread seem to have missed the point. This article is not supporting 100% abstinence of these functions. It is doing exactly the opposite - and showing up people who say "never do this" or "that is always wrong" as being as ridiculous as those who blindly support abstinence from sex. This kind of tunnel vision, learning by rote, and refusal to teach what is really happening, is exactly the same stupid attitude that creates bad programmers, as it creates unbalanced teenagers. Perhaps, just like condoms, memcpy, strcpy, strcat are dangerous or ineffective 10% of the time. But that other 90% of the time, when used correctly, they are perfectly safe, fun and essential to learning and growing. Avoiding them completely does not create a healthy relationship between a language and its programmer. I realize that not everyone in this thread is a C programmer, but this prevailing attitude of saying "this should never be done/used" just because you're heard that from someone else, is a really petty, annoying, and persistent aspect of programmer culture.

shadowmint 13y ago
Perhaps, but tested and true advertising methodology is 1) find a undeniable grain of truth, 2) wrap your message around it, so the consumer is confused into thinking your message is by association true too. You might be right about the sarcastic message 'wrapping', but these posters only work because the messages they're wrapped around are true. I certainly didn't come away from those posters going, 'dang, those guys... so over the top; there's nothing wrong with using strcpy, you're making a fuss about nothing'.
michaelt 13y ago
I'm a beginner C programmer, maybe you can share your experience with me. I've found bugs in libraries where sprintf was used instead of snprintf and it caused crashes. So I know from experience of cases where snprintf was a better choice than sprintf. And I've certainly coded a few off-by-one errors in my time so I can sure understand it's easy to get the destination buffer size wrong! I'm not doing anything performance-critical with strings. Under what circumstances should I use sprintf instead of snprintf and what benefits will I see?
- orangeduck 13y ago
  If you understand the difference between snprintf and sprintf, what trouble it can cause, and where to use it, it sounds like you're already doing great. What would be bad was if you had the blind notion that "snprintf is good" and "sprintf is bad" without knowing why. As for an example of when you might want to use sprintf. If you compile to C89 (ANSI) snprintf isn't included in the standard so you're left with sprintf if you want your code to be portable. A better example is strcpy though. A function which is completely normal and safe when used correctly, but someone with the wrong idea might use strncpy as a "safer" version and cause themselves more trouble for not knowing what is going on. As if to prove my point you can see someone advocating this exact thing in another comment tree in this thread. They've probably heard from someone that the "n" version of functions are safe. If they'd actually looked into it they'd realize strncpy doesn't do what you might think.
awkward 13y ago
Maybe he's saying that migrating to the less safe, more performant functions can ... wait.

shadowmint 13y ago

Perhaps, but tested and true advertising methodology is 1) find a undeniable grain of truth, 2) wrap your message around it, so the consumer is confused into thinking your message is by association true too. You might be right about the sarcastic message 'wrapping', but these posters only work because the messages they're wrapped around are true. I certainly didn't come away from those posters going, 'dang, those guys... so over the top; there's nothing wrong with using strcpy, you're making a fuss about nothing'.

michaelt 13y ago

I'm a beginner C programmer, maybe you can share your experience with me. I've found bugs in libraries where sprintf was used instead of snprintf and it caused crashes. So I know from experience of cases where snprintf was a better choice than sprintf. And I've certainly coded a few off-by-one errors in my time so I can sure understand it's easy to get the destination buffer size wrong! I'm not doing anything performance-critical with strings. Under what circumstances should I use sprintf instead of snprintf and what benefits will I see?

orangeduck 13y ago
If you understand the difference between snprintf and sprintf, what trouble it can cause, and where to use it, it sounds like you're already doing great. What would be bad was if you had the blind notion that "snprintf is good" and "sprintf is bad" without knowing why. As for an example of when you might want to use sprintf. If you compile to C89 (ANSI) snprintf isn't included in the standard so you're left with sprintf if you want your code to be portable. A better example is strcpy though. A function which is completely normal and safe when used correctly, but someone with the wrong idea might use strncpy as a "safer" version and cause themselves more trouble for not knowing what is going on. As if to prove my point you can see someone advocating this exact thing in another comment tree in this thread. They've probably heard from someone that the "n" version of functions are safe. If they'd actually looked into it they'd realize strncpy doesn't do what you might think.

awkward 13y ago

Maybe he's saying that migrating to the less safe, more performant functions can ... wait.