2020-12-29 17:50:08.026205+01 by Dan Lyke 3 comments
With all of the defensive coding and comprehensive test coverage necessary to work in modern interpreted (or semi-interpreted, as in Objective-C) languages, the security "failures"/implications of C are really failures of the containing run-time environment.
[ related topics: Nature and environment Software Engineering Journalism and Media Work, productivity and environment ]
comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):
#Comment Re: With all of the defensive coding and made: 2020-12-30 03:07:26.84645+01 by: ebwolf
How is this different from "It works on my machine"?
#Comment Re: With all of the defensive coding and made: 2020-12-30 20:06:16.810722+01 by: Dan Lyke
I think it's just an acknowledgement that interpreted languages are largely just a more complex run-time environment, and an off-loading of cognitive load for correctness from the compiler to the programmer because correctness isn't as "important".
#Comment Re: With all of the defensive coding and made: 2021-01-04 08:24:43.488666+01 by: spc476
C's failures are just two---the lack of automatic bounds checking for arrays, and the C Standard committee's insistence that 1's complement and sign-magnitude CPUs are still a thing (i.e. that signed overflow should never happen).
We will not edit your comments. However, we may delete your comments, or cause them to be hidden behind another link, if we feel they detract from the conversation. Commercial plugs are fine, if they are relevant to the conversation, and if you don't try to pretend to be a consumer. Annoying endorsements will be deleted if you're lucky, if you're not a whole bunch of people smarter and more articulate than you will ridicule you, and we will leave such ridicule in place.
Flutterby™ is a trademark claimed by
Dan Lyke for the web publications at www.flutterby.com and www.flutterby.net.