C for damn sure isn't "safe". Neither is assembler. Very few compilers
could be called safe in the sense that it is impossible to write buggy
code that is vulnerable to various exploits or at risk of crashing an
application, but C is arguably more dangerous than most because with
pointers and inlined assembler you can do "anything".
Total power and complete control is never safe. C is like an M-1 tank
armed with pocket nukes and with a built in levitation system and
antimatter propulsion system -- misuse it and you can blow up whole
worlds, but it can solve lots of problems very quickly. Safe is a kiddy
bike with training wheels -- not fast, not powerful, but if you pedal
long enough you can get where you want to go.
Unless you get run over by a tank, that is.
I can understand why c is considered naughty but isn't it bad
programming (systems development) to blame rather than the flexibility
of the language?
Absolutely. With great power comes great responsibility. Neurosurgery
is not safe. Consequently Neurosurgeons require immense amounts of
training and have to work extremely carefully -- and people still die.
However, far more of them live! Putting band-aids on is safe. However,
try putting a band-aid on a brain tumor.
Very entertaining explanations. Especially the M-1 tank...
Therefore; absolute safety = language safety x "programmer's safety"
c is being penalized for giving the freedom and power to humans. They
should consider programmer's safety in IEC 1508.
I had a lecture on "Secure coding" last week and the c was frowned upon
again for obvious reasons. I think it's narrow minded and gives out the
wrong message when the programmer is not included in the equation.
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, [email protected]
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
