On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 22:26:58 +1100, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> >> >> Can you give an example? I wouldn't count things like gets, which >> aren't as much changes in the language, as recognition that using it was >> buggy from the start. > >That's exactly the point. `gets` is dangerous and needs to die with extreme >prejudice, and is an extremely strong argument in favour of breaking >backwards compatibility. Why? You don't know how to use gets without running into a buffer overflow? This is the kind of reasoning I don't understand, really. Creating programming languages that are afraid of their programmers is why we have been creating ever more weak and limited programming languages, and why we have been breeding ever more weak and limited programmers. Getting all worked up because a programming language offers a way for you to shoot yourself in the foot seems to be the thing of the day. Program X introduced a vulnerability, blame it on gets() not the programmer. I'd rather see that programmer die, than gets() but that's me, I guess... gets() dying justifies nothing. There's no argument for it. Trying to make c look more safe because you dicthed gets, is some sort of a very bad joke. You might as well get rid of alloc and pretty much the whole standard language, really. And yet, there goes backwards compatibility down the toilet because programmers aren't men enough to so much as look at gets() in the documentation without falling into a crying fit and loosing it in front of the girls. Don't use it. But let the damn thing stay. For pete's sake, is this really what we are coming into? Even C? Notice: Intelligent programmers not needed anymore. Programming is for dumb people and justin bieber programming languages. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
