On 12/03/17 20:19, bytevolc...@safe-mail.net wrote: > I've always subscribed to the idea that too much safety results in too > may idiots, and the same is true for all these "safe" programming > languages. "Oh I don't have to write any form of bounds-checking, > because the language will do it for me." > > To add further insult to injury, if the language's bounds checking kicks > in first your program may do something worse than just corrupting its > own memory. In my experience, apps written in these "safe" languages > (usually web apps or bloatware) actually have been the most bug-ridden > and bloated.
Oh yeah. I recently discovered a very major business operations application where rather than using the OS's FTP and SFTP functions, they wrote their own in "safe" Java. I don't know why. It's used as part of a file transfer system -- you "print" a file to a print queue, and it is magically transported to another machine. If the other machine is being serviced? Network broke? receiving machine unable to recieve? Oh well. Magic doesn't work, the file is lost, without alerting the "sending" program. Error reporting? Well, for a long time, I thought it was non-existent, but I recently found they just dumped all the java runtime output to a file. Nothing is actually done with this info in the application, but if 100+ lines of J-crap is your favorite way to see "server timeout", this is your tool. Idiots who shouldn't be coding, coding. "safe" languages being trusted to be safe when in the hands of idiots. Like you said. The more I see of "safe" languages, the more I love assembly. Most people who call themselves programmers...shouldn't. Nick.
