raf:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 10:52:02PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 09:28:59AM +1000, raf wrote:
> >
> > > > Thanks. This is the result of lazy coding in a nasty language.
> > > > I should stop hidden static buffers, or switch to a language
> > > > has automatic destructors like C++ or Go.
> > > >
> > > > Wietse
> > >
> > > or Rust! :-)
> >
> > We all have our favourite much safer than C compiled languages. Rust is
> > not a bad choice for avoiding mutable shared data, my choice in that
> > space these days is Haskell. Pity Wietse and I are unlikely to find a
> > better C that we're both presently comfortable in.
> >
> > Migration away from C is not an urgent problem in Postfix, as you
> > probably know. Thanks to Wietse's diligence, C footguns are exceedingly
> > rare in Postfix. This one creates no notable issues, just returns an
> > incorrect answer from some "postconf -xd" recursive expansions.
> >
> > --
> > Viktor.
>
> Yes. In Postfix's case, migration away from C would be a huge investment
> with very little return (no matter how lovely other languages might be).
> I'm happy as long as "postconf -x" works (without -d) in existing versions,
> and that looks fine.
C and C++ are similar enough that C can easily be wrapped in C++.
I'd love to adopt Gtest which I have been using internally at Google
over the past 5+ years.
Wietse
