Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2024 08:39:35 +0000 From: Paul Floyd <paulf2718@gmail.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The Case for Rust (in any system) Message-ID: <9adc3619-bc38-4fe7-bf16-20e0dfb3b619@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20240905194529.3szOViVM@steffen%sdaoden.eu> References: <CAOtMX2iCNX5OkdeghnbmcMrO0UYWwm4zfxFSZGznOznu%2Bmh5rA@mail.gmail.com> <20240905194529.3szOViVM@steffen%sdaoden.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 05-09-24 19:45, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote: > Alan Somers wrote in > |The real takeaway here is that C is no longer sufficient for writing > |high quality code in the 2020s. Everyone needs to adapt their tools. > > I *totally* speak against this. > Quite the opposite i claim that C was safe already fifty years Is that a joke? Do you have any evidence? It sounds like wishful thinking to me. When I explain to my young colleagues that learnt to code in Java and Rust how K&R C function definitions "worked", their eyes open wide in amazement. > ago, it is just that the occasional one does not realize it. > *Nothing* prevents you from using a string object instead of > direct memory accesses, a vector object instead of arrays managed > via realloc(), and all that. *Nothing > If *you* do not do that that is your fault and you are a bad > programmer; moreover, you should not be allowed to vote in > a democratic environment (surely you do not read all the > magazines and newspapers, and watch or hear to policital > emissions, in order to build yourself a *real* opinion), be > enabled to drive a car, and what else not. I'm not sure that I follow your argument. Are you saying that you can build memory safety into C code and that if someone doesn't so they are a bad programmer? What's the point - why not just use a memory safe language? A+ Paul
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9adc3619-bc38-4fe7-bf16-20e0dfb3b619>