Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 00:58:00 -0800 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: sthaug@nethelp.no Cc: mike@smith.net.au, dcs@newsguy.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BootFORTH - demo floppy Message-ID: <199812210858.AAA50894@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 21 Dec 1998 09:55:15 %2B0100." <13310.914230515@verdi.nethelp.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > I'm not sure what do you mean with the first question. As for the second > > > question... sure. Forth string operators are all count based. The null will > > > not appear on the end of the string unless you put it there yourself. > > > > We don't like counted strings. They suck for innumerable reasons, and > > if the only reason for having them there is "tradition" (ie. there is > > no reason *not* to take them away) then they can damn well die. 8) > > Given the many buffer overflows that have been found in various Unix > applications through the years, and the recent cleanup of string handling > in the kernel, maybe this view should be reexamined? *groan* Counted strings aren't somehow magically immune to overflowing their buffers. Lousy programming technique will take you from behind no matter what technology you think you're using. (I am resisting the temptation to use the word "bonehead" in this message.) -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199812210858.AAA50894>