Mark Martinec wrote:
> On Friday November 17 2006 21:24, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
>
>> Besides, if there wasn't SA pluging, I would prefer a C/C++ version of SA.
>> Wouldn't it run better? Wouldn't it be faster, wouldn't have a smaller
>> memory footprint, better reclamation, better hooks for plugins etc? :)
>>
>
> ...and buffer overruns, dangling pointers, poor maintainability,
> playground for security holes. If SA were written in C,
> I wouldn't let it examine mail being received from 'the wild'.
>
> Mark
>
>
And postfix, your MTA, is written in.... ???
That said, I agree, trying to implement SA in C++ would be a NIGHTMARE.
C++ is NOT an optimal language for apps that are string-parsing intensive.
Drawbacks to C/C++:
- regex is not language native, added by PCRE library.
- Too many folks write C/C++ badly, failing to watch their memory.
This is substantially more likely in anything involving string handling,
which is everything SA does.
- C/C++ does not have many of the very nice libraries that perl has
for DNS, SPF, IP:Country, Base64, etc, etc.
-Again, the development team is perl programmers, unless you've got
a set of equivalent spam experts, or can prove the existing devs all
know your proposed language, even suggesting ANY port to ANY other
language is inane. You may as well suggest changing the spoken language
of the documentation to something other than English. Thus far, all the
writers speak English. Many know other spoken languages besides
English, but I doubt you'd find another one that they ALL speak.
