Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Is it possible C is the security problem? Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 11:14:27 -0800 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <87fv0m4z9s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="945944de09706c9b4e29b53c9d2efdc2"; logging-data="11213"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19SOSWh8hZBdSUbWF7jZm4i" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:WBsTkDhEYSRzo2zpxaEETT5XPzA= sha1:xz37rS494V5TSbBHNI1SZDsyt8s= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:75002 Reinhardt Behm writes: > Jorgen Grahn wrote: >> However, you do get tools that help you write safer code, if you use >> them: containers, exceptions, classes, ... I find they help a lot -- >> although I still need to use my brain. > > That is the major point. > People should use that CPU with several man-million year of development - > called brain, even if it's still version 1.0 - and not rely on the computer > and/or programming language to do the thinking for them. A counterargument to that is that any thinking that *can* be done mechanically *should* be done mechanically. Of course that can be taken too far, but for example those of us who choose to program in C rather than in assembly or machine language are letting the compiler do a great deal of "thinking" for us. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc. "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"