Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: VMS
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 08:04:07 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <20250723080407.00004a8a@gmail.com>
References: <wCqdnYde9MIbmND1nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> <mbmm2nFdsgcU2@mid.individual.net> <slrn105cajs.4vj.spamtrap42@one.localnet> <slrn105g20l.3q8n7.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid> <slrn105k75h.h13.spamtrap42@one.localnet> <wwvpletmv3e.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> <slrn105mpkd.q0k.spamtrap42@one.localnet> <KeednUgPwP3EDcb1nZ2dnZfqn_QAAAAA@giganews.com> <20250625093213.00002ec2@gmail.com> <20250625094418.00007fd2@gmail.com> <v_2dnfjqXOtB4sH1nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> <105iv02$3cuhr$2@dont-email.me> <wwvzfcy0z3n.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> <20250721091242.00007573@gmail.com> <wwvms8x5nsk.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> <20250721133148.00007cc6@gmail.com> <105pv2t$77mv$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 17:04:11 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d1fddc984b9daff4cec7569e2db0c386"; logging-data="1023999"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18eZou9epwK72GD4v1pBzaqQGbrKiO4NLM="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WLjrkE/3Mt46hktCtw640gUVr54=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.42; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:69854

On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 07:22:21 +0100
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:

> You appear to be advocating for using an "assert" type paradigm. This 
> doesn't need to be coupled to actual reservation size.

I'm not so much advocating for any specific coding practice in any
specific language - asserts work, but so does designing algorithms such
that bounds violations can never happen (e.g. #define BUFFER_BOUND and
then loop from 0 to BUFFER_BOUND - if there's no other indexing, it
will never go off the end, unless the compiler is just broken,) where
possible.

My point is simply that, unless you're using a language where bounds-
checking is provided for "free" behind the scenes, boundary errors will
*always* be a hazard, and working in conscious recognition of that is a
far more responsible approach than relying on superstitious warding
practices - even if the practices in question may be valid design
choices for other reasons.