I agree that converting legacy code to use one of the techniques I suggest isn't
always going to be easy and inexpensive. My posting was aimed at those saying
that something better than C/C++ should be used for new security-critical
applications (which I agree is preferable), and I was pointing out
Ok, lets turn the tables a bit here. We talked about this a bit back
last December when I said that you need to use the right tool for the
right job, and to quit beating on C.
For those of us who write kernel mode / ring0 code, what language are
you suggesting we write in? Name a good typesafe
David Crocker wrote:
Apart from the obvious solution of choosing another language, there are at least
two ways to avoid these problems in C++:
1. Ban arrays (to quote Marshall Cline's "C++ FAQ Lite", arrays are evil!). Use
...
2. If you really must have naked arrays, ban the use of indexing and ari
At 10:36 PM +0100 6/10/04, David Crocker wrote:
>I agree that converting legacy code to use one of the techniques I suggest isn't
>always going to be easy and inexpensive. My posting was aimed at those saying
>that something better than C/C++ should be used for new security-critical
>applications (
At 2:00 PM -0700 6/10/04, Dana Epp wrote:
>Ok, lets turn the tables a bit here. We talked about this a bit back last December
>when I said that you need to use the right tool for the right job, and to quit
>beating on C.
>
>For those of us who write kernel mode / ring0 code, what language are you
> What there are _not_ are reasons for new development to cling to
> languages which make flawed constructs easy for the individual
> programmer to misuse.
Certainly there are - or people wouldn't be doing it.
Whether you or I think those reasons are good reasons is another
question. (Some of th
Likewise for the IBM Mainframe operating systems MVS,OS/390,z/OS - much of
which is written in (I believe) PL/M - a dialect much like PL/1.
Many of our Operating Systems seem to have evolved out of the old DEC RSTS
system. For example, CP/M had a PIP command. Later renamed to COPY in DOS.
UNIX
ljknews wrote:
At 2:00 PM -0700 6/10/04, Dana Epp wrote:
Ok, lets turn the tables a bit here. We talked about this a bit back last December
when I said that you need to use the right tool for the right job, and to quit beating
on C.
For those of us who write kernel mode / ring0 code, what lang
ljknews wrote:
>>
And there are ways of using Assembly Language to avoid pitfalls that it
provides. There are ways of using horse-drawn carriages to avoid the
major reason (think street cleaning) why the automobile was embraced in
urban areas during the early part of the 20th century.
What there
> For those of us who write kernel mode / ring0 code, what language are
> you suggesting we write in? Name a good typesafe language that you
> have PRACTICALLY seen to write kernel mode code in.
Lisp. I used Lisp Machines back when I worked in academia, and almost
everything was in Lisp, includi
I was a bit wrong earlier.. IBM System Programming language was PL/X (not
PL/M)...
Here's a link to an older reference manual...
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/pls/GC28-6794-0_PLSIIguideMay74.pdf
Mike H.
---
Michael S Hines
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 9:16 AM -0500 6/11/04, Michael S Hines wrote:
> IBM had Language Environment (LE) before .NET come along.
What is Language Environment (for either of those) ?
Michael S Hines wrote:
Likewise for the IBM Mainframe operating systems MVS,OS/390,z/OS - much of
which is written in (I believe) PL/M - a dialect much like PL/1.
If PL/M is the language I am remembering from an embedded systems class
back in the 1980s, then it is not at all like PL/1. Rather,
13 matches
Mail list logo
