Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 14:18:51 +0200 From: Marius Bendiksen <Marius.Bendiksen@scancall.no> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: mike@smith.net.au, jamie@itribe.net, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 64-bit time_t Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19980817141851.00a51710@mail.scancall.no> In-Reply-To: <199808171200.GAA21209@lariat.lariat.org> References: <Pine.SGI.3.96.980817075447.5095P-100000@animaniacs.itribe. net> <199808141756.LAA24900@lariat.lariat.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Nope, we're talking about safety measures in the language and compiler. Of >which we are consumers, unless we choose to reinvent both (which generally >is not the project at hand). Regardless of the claimed secureness of a language, the designer/programmer of a product should always take it upon himself to add an extra layer of it by making sure his code doesn't have any potential flaws. I agree with what was said earlier, taking a compiler on trust is a bad move. Of course, you should get a car with an airbag, but that's no excuse to drive too fast. Besides which, the lack of such measures in C / C++ empowers the programmer to a great extent. Heuristics have not yet progressed far enough to second- guess a programmer as well as he himself can; when such is the case, we'll all be outdated. (with the exception of heuristics programmers, of course.) --- Marius Bendiksen, IT-Trainee, ScanCall AS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.5.32.19980817141851.00a51710>