Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #9626 > unrolled thread

Re: C is not a low level language

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 12:40 +0800
    Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 05:16 +0000
      Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 13:20 +0800
        Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 13:24 +0800
        Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 19:45 +0800
        Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 13:09 +0000
          Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 14:38 +0000
            Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 15:18 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 17:21 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 17:43 +0000
                  Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 20:17 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 18:19 +0000
                  Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 20:02 +0100
                    Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 19:26 +0000
                      Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 21:36 +0100
                        Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 20:47 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 21:10 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 08:25 +0100
                            Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-25 12:24 +0000
                              Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 17:04 +0100
                                Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-25 16:52 +0000
                        Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 17:59 -0800
                        Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-25 08:46 +0100
                          Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 09:36 +0100
                            Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-25 10:13 +0100
                              Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-26 09:56 +0100
                            Re: C is not a low level language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-25 14:12 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 12:20 +0000
                            Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 13:36 -0800
                        Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 10:29 +0200
                          Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 09:41 +0100
                            Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 10:55 +0200
                              Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 10:24 +0100
                    Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 21:03 +0000
                      Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 08:58 +0100
                        Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-25 09:40 +0100
                          Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 10:01 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 12:55 -0800
                  Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 08:31 +0100
              Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 17:42 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 18:19 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-24 17:56 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 18:23 +0000
                  Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 20:58 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 20:52 +0000
                  Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-25 16:31 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 14:01 -0800
                  Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-25 23:04 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 15:53 -0800
                    Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:07 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 20:50 +0100
                  Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:04 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:25 +0000
                      Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-28 11:56 -0500
                        Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-28 19:45 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 17:55 +0000
                  Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:03 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-28 11:25 -0800
                      Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-28 19:30 +0000
            Re: C is not a low level language Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 20:47 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 21:29 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-02-25 20:16 +0000
        Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 12:53 -0800
        Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 09:49 +0200
      Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 21:07 +0100
        Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 22:59 +0000
          Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 09:57 +0100
            Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 09:59 +0000
    Re: C is not a low level language Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 19:54 +1300
      Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-24 07:56 +0000
        Re: C is not a low level language Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 21:58 +1300
          Re: C is not a low level language "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2019-02-24 10:57 +0100
          Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-24 10:13 +0000
          Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 10:47 +0000
            Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-24 08:48 -0500
              Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 14:42 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 07:15 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-25 09:25 -0500
                  Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 15:03 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-25 12:10 -0500
                      Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 17:58 +0000
                  Re: C is not a low level language Axel Berger <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> - 2019-02-25 17:44 +0100
                    Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 19:18 +0200
              Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 10:35 +0200
                Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 10:44 +0000
                  Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-25 12:29 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 14:26 +0000
                      Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 17:08 +0000
                        Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 20:08 +0200
                        Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 18:00 +0000
                      Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-27 22:37 -0800
                        Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-28 02:25 -0800
                  Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 12:27 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-25 09:36 -0500
                  Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 15:05 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 19:20 +0200
                      Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 23:02 +0000
                        Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 06:52 +0000
                        Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:41 +0200
                          Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 12:20 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 14:01 +0100
                          Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-26 08:48 -0500
                          Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 19:20 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 10:04 -0500
          Re: C is not a low level language lonelydad <lonelydad58@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 14:44 +0000
          Re: C is not a low level language "U-laptop\\Norah" <Norah@laptop.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> - 2019-02-27 16:16 -0600
            Re: C is not a low level language Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2019-03-01 12:12 +1300
              Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-03-01 00:19 +0000
        Re: C is not a low level language Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2019-02-24 19:59 -0800
          Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-25 16:10 +0000
          Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 21:02 +0100
            Re: C is not a low level language Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2019-02-26 00:37 +0100
              Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 19:09 -0500
              Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 06:52 +0000
      Re: C is not a low level language T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 00:30 -0800
        Re: C is not a low level language T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 00:31 -0800
        Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-24 10:16 +0000
      Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-24 11:22 +0000
        Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-24 08:51 -0500
          Re: C is not a low level language pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2019-02-24 07:20 -0800
            Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-24 15:35 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-24 11:05 -0500
              Re: C is not a low level language pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2019-02-24 14:39 -0800
                Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 19:11 -0800
                Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 09:41 -0500
                  Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 14:53 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 10:19 -0500
                      Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-25 16:38 +0100
                        Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 11:20 -0500
                          Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 17:49 +0000
                            Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 09:18 +0100
                        Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
                          Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 20:25 +0200
                            Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:40 -0500
                              Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:45 +0200
                                Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-26 08:02 -0500
                                Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-26 09:11 -0500
                            Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 09:23 +0100
                            Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-26 08:02 -0500
                              Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 17:57 +0200
                          Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
                        Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 17:42 -0500
                        Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 22:33 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 09:30 +0100
                      Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
                      Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 13:52 -0800
                    Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 15:20 +0000
                      Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
                        Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 18:47 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:50 -0500
                            Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 18:59 +0000
                        Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 20:15 +0200
                          Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-25 18:38 +0000
                            Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:49 +0200
                          Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:40 -0500
                            Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:55 +0200
                              Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-26 16:29 +0000
                                Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
                                  Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-03-04 23:43 -0500
                        Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 18:16 +0000
                        Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 17:44 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:05 -0500
                            Re: C is not a low level language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-26 00:51 -0600
                              Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-26 10:58 +0100
                                Re: C is not a low level language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-26 10:53 -0600
                                  Re: C is not a low level language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-26 17:49 +0000
                                  Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-26 18:11 +0000
                                    Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-26 18:24 +0000
                                  Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-26 19:24 +0100
                                    Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-26 19:44 +0100
                        Re: C is not a low level language nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2019-02-26 06:33 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
          Re: C is not a low level language Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2019-02-24 20:03 -0800
        Re: C is not a low level language pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2019-02-24 14:56 -0800
    Re: C is not a low level language Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 20:43 +0000
      Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 14:14 +0800
        Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 10:45 +0000
          Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 19:04 +0800

Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9  Next page →

#9672

On 24/02/2019 20:47, Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2019-02-24, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 24/02/2019 13:09, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> If you take the trouble to ensure that you have enough space for your
>>> data, there's nothing wrong with using str.
>>
>> c=malloc(strlen(str)+1);
>> if(c)
>> 	strcpy (c,str);
>>
>> or
>>
>> c=stdup(str);
>>
>> ....
>>
>> free (c);
> 
> 
> or alloc_sprintf(....  but someone cross-posted this to windows newsgroups.
> 

never heard of that one.....thats not in stdlib...


> 
> 


-- 
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted 
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest 
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly 
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid 
before him."

    - Leo Tolstoy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9753

On 2019-02-24, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 24/02/2019 20:47, Jasen Betts wrote:
>> On 2019-02-24, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 24/02/2019 13:09, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> If you take the trouble to ensure that you have enough space for your
>>>> data, there's nothing wrong with using str.
>>>
>>> c=malloc(strlen(str)+1);
>>> if(c)
>>> 	strcpy (c,str);
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> c=stdup(str);
>>>
>>> ....
>>>
>>> free (c);
>> 
>> 
>> or alloc_sprintf(....  but someone cross-posted this to windows newsgroups.
>> 
>
> never heard of that one.....thats not in stdlib...
>

I meant asprintf (which is a GNU extension) and available on raspberry-pi 
(if running linux like most do) and ubuntu two of the six news-groups
this troll thread was posted to.  Glib provides g_strdup_sprintf which
is the same sort of thing. 

-- 
  When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9665

Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> writes:
[...]
> There are (relatively) simple ways to write secure code, such as always 
> using the 'strn...' functions rather than the older 'str...' equivalents 
> and *taking the trouble to size storage correctly* that make code a lot 
> more bullet-proof. Its shameful that so many coders don't use them and/or 
> don't test their code adequately. 

No, the strn* functions are not drop-in safer replacements for the str*
functions.

I've discussed strncpy() here (in comp.lang.c) before, but for those of
you following the inappropriate mass cross-posting of this discussion,
here's what I wrote about it:

http://the-flat-trantor-society.blogspot.com/2012/03/no-strncpy-is-not-safer-strcpy.html

I've directed followups to comp.lang.c only.  (My newsreader or server
won't even let me cross-post to this many newsgroups.)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9685

On 24/02/2019 10:11, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> There are (relatively) simple ways to write secure code, such as always 
> using the 'strn...' functions rather than the older 'str...' equivalents 

https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2013/11/29/4

Not quite.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9735

Den 2019-02-24 kl. 06:16, skrev The Natural Philosopher:
> On 24/02/2019 04:40, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>> On 2/24/2019 12:11 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2019 4:59 AM, jacobnavia wrote:
>>>> http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/3220000/3212479/p10-chisnall.pdf?ip=90.22.143.233&id=3212479&acc=OPEN&key=4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E6D218144511F3437&__acm__=1550954647_0d9af87c752b221627509ce89da282a8 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> C is definitely no 4GL (4th generation language)!
>>> But .... many 4GLs were written in C! :)
>>>
>>
>> And many operating systems are written in C.
>> In short, C is a pillar!
>>
> Well its a very fast way to write portable assembler.
> 
> And if more programs were written in it we would have programs of one 
> tenth the size runninmg ten times faster and a huge number of crap 
> programmers would be flipping burgers.
> 

Yeah! And if we remove the seat belts, air bags, and deformation zones 
from cars, we would soon only have the 'real' drivers left
Let's call it the 'c' car.

Will likely become popular with people who thinks a bit much of 
themselves ...


-- 
Björn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9758

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 21:07:27 +0100
Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah! And if we remove the seat belts, air bags, and deformation zones 
> from cars, we would soon only have the 'real' drivers left
> Let's call it the 'c' car.

	Actually they're called motorbikes and a lot of people drive them.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9772

Den 2019-02-25 kl. 23:59, skrev Ahem A Rivet's Shot:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 21:07:27 +0100
> Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Yeah! And if we remove the seat belts, air bags, and deformation zones
>> from cars, we would soon only have the 'real' drivers left
>> Let's call it the 'c' car.
> 
> 	Actually they're called motorbikes and a lot of people drive them.
> 

Yes and they think they are immortal, or at least very good at riding them.

However according to
https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-motorcycle-crashes

"In 2016, motorcyclists were 28 times more likely than passenger car 
occupants to die in a crash per vehicle mile traveled."


To go back to c, John McCormick wrote quite a bit about the
troubles of teaching c.

http://archive.adaic.com/projects/atwork/trains.html

No one finished the project when using C, even given 60% of the code. On 
the other hand, 75% of the class finished the project when using Ada, 
even given a much smaller portion of the code (less than 20%).


Yes, a _VERY_ skilled c-programmer thinks that his code is the best.
It may be. But there are far more programmers that THINK they are very 
skilled c programmers. And they fuck up.

All buffer overruns can be blamed on the c-language.
I wonder how much say, Heartbleed actually did cost the world?
The Guardian talks about millions of dollar
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/18/heartbleed-bug-will-cost-millions

But who cares, since there exists _VERY_ good c-programmers and THEY 
would not make that mistake...
Yeah, but the world consists of mediocre programmers.
And the language can either help them to produce better code,
or it can hinder them. C hinders, Ada helps.



-- 
Björn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9774

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:57:51 +0100
Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> wrote:

> Den 2019-02-25 kl. 23:59, skrev Ahem A Rivet's Shot:
> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 21:07:27 +0100
> > Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Yeah! And if we remove the seat belts, air bags, and deformation zones
> >> from cars, we would soon only have the 'real' drivers left
> >> Let's call it the 'c' car.
> > 
> > 	Actually they're called motorbikes and a lot of people drive
> > them.
> > 
> 
> Yes and they think they are immortal, or at least very good at riding
> them.

	Yep the comparison with C programmers is pretty exact :) or should
that be :(

> However according to
> https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-motorcycle-crashes
> 
> "In 2016, motorcyclists were 28 times more likely than passenger car 
> occupants to die in a crash per vehicle mile traveled."

	C programmers are probably 28 times more likely than OO programmers
to create security holes/potential crashes.

> Yes, a _VERY_ skilled c-programmer thinks that his code is the best.
> It may be. But there are far more programmers that THINK they are very 
> skilled c programmers. And they fuck up.

	Just as there are some motorcyclists who are remarkably safe, they
usually have *much* faster reflexes than average and extremely good
concentration. Yamaha produced a very light 350cc bike called the YPVS
which many bikers concluded stood for Young Person's Vehicular Suicide -
the thing was a street legal racing bike

> All buffer overruns can be blamed on the c-language.

	Nah, I'm sure many have been perpetrated in assembler - probably
some by me!

> And the language can either help them to produce better code,
> or it can hinder them. C hinders, Ada helps.

	Ada as a car, C as a motorbike[1] - the former will get you through
London traffic in comfort and safety, the latter will get you there more
quickly with much greater risk. Both have their place but most people
should use a car.

[1] Hmm Java as the tube - safe, reliable, slow and uncomfortable.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9630

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:40:43 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/24/2019 12:11 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>> On 2/24/2019 4:59 AM, jacobnavia wrote:
>>> http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/3220000/3212479/p10-chisnall.pdf?ip=90.22.143.233&id=3212479&acc=OPEN&key=4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E6D218144511F3437&__acm__=1550954647_0d9af87c752b221627509ce89da282a8
>>> 
>> 
>> C is definitely no 4GL (4th generation language)!
>> But .... many 4GLs were written in C! :)
>> 
>
>And many operating systems are written in C.
>In short, C is a pillar!

C is a write-only language.  :-)
-- 

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9631

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 19:54:53 +1300
Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:40:43 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
> <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >On 2/24/2019 12:11 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> >> On 2/24/2019 4:59 AM, jacobnavia wrote:
> >>> http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/3220000/3212479/p10-chisnall.pdf?ip=90.22.143.233&id=3212479&acc=OPEN&key=4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E6D218144511F3437&__acm__=1550954647_0d9af87c752b221627509ce89da282a8
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> C is definitely no 4GL (4th generation language)!
> >> But .... many 4GLs were written in C! :)
> >> 
> >
> >And many operating systems are written in C.
> >In short, C is a pillar!
> 
> C is a write-only language.  :-)

	That smiley is very much needed - there are write only languages
but C is not, one of them. But to put it in carpentry terms C is like a
table saw without a guard - extremely useful and in skilled hands capable
of achieving remarkable results with great efficiency but also extremely
dangerous in unskilled hands.

	I gave away my last copy of K&R more than thirty years ago, I've
written hundreds of thousands of lines of C code from operating system
kernel level to financial applications. I debug and maintain complex systems
written in C on a regular basis. These days I wouldn't choose C for
anything other than low level high efficiency code that was going to be
processor bound.

	For anything I/O bound I prefer Python, Perl or Java (but not
'enterprise' Java with all the trimmings and cruft - the language is good
but the cruft is ... well cruft). Readability, maintainability and speed of
development are all more important than raw efficiency - most especially
maintainability. It is no good having code a tenth the size and ten times
faster if the first time someone less careful works on it dangerous hidden
bugs appear because handling pointers and raw memory requires care.

	It is also worth noticing that just because the language is low
level and permits high efficiency there's no guarantee of efficient
programs, all too many programmers start coding and stop designing far too
soon and wind up using very bad algorithms or optimising the wrong things
producing twisty masses of C code that once you understand what they're
supposed to achieve can be replaced by short pieces of clear python that
*are* ten times smaller and run ten times faster or slightly longer pieces
of C that are *slightly* faster than the python but harder to maintain.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9634

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 07:56:27 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 19:54:53 +1300
>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:40:43 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
>> <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >On 2/24/2019 12:11 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>> >> On 2/24/2019 4:59 AM, jacobnavia wrote:
>> >>> http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/3220000/3212479/p10-chisnall.pdf?ip=90.22.143.233&id=3212479&acc=OPEN&key=4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E6D218144511F3437&__acm__=1550954647_0d9af87c752b221627509ce89da282a8
>> >>> 
>> >> 
>> >> C is definitely no 4GL (4th generation language)!
>> >> But .... many 4GLs were written in C! :)
>> >> 
>> >
>> >And many operating systems are written in C.
>> >In short, C is a pillar!
>> 
>> C is a write-only language.  :-)
>
>	That smiley is very much needed - there are write only languages
>but C is not, one of them. But to put it in carpentry terms C is like a
>table saw without a guard - extremely useful and in skilled hands capable
>of achieving remarkable results with great efficiency but also extremely
>dangerous in unskilled hands.

It's more than 25 years since I wrote C code but I will always
remember the first time I encountered the problem I have hinted at. I
had written 5 lines of code but then over the next few days after
succeeding revisions I had reduced the 5 lines to only one which did
the same thing as the original 5. I came back to it a few months later
and found that I was damned if I could quite work out what that one
line of code was supposed to be doing. I never did manage to get back
to the original five lines.
>
>	I gave away my last copy of K&R more than thirty years ago, I've
>written hundreds of thousands of lines of C code from operating system
>kernel level to financial applications. I debug and maintain complex systems
>written in C on a regular basis. These days I wouldn't choose C for
>anything other than low level high efficiency code that was going to be
>processor bound.

I understand.
>
>	For anything I/O bound I prefer Python, Perl or Java (but not
>'enterprise' Java with all the trimmings and cruft - the language is good
>but the cruft is ... well cruft). Readability, maintainability and speed of
>development are all more important than raw efficiency - most especially
>maintainability. It is no good having code a tenth the size and ten times
>faster if the first time someone less careful works on it dangerous hidden
>bugs appear because handling pointers and raw memory requires care.

Yep. That's the area of my 5 into 1 problem.
>
>	It is also worth noticing that just because the language is low
>level and permits high efficiency there's no guarantee of efficient
>programs, all too many programmers start coding and stop designing far too
>soon and wind up using very bad algorithms or optimising the wrong things
>producing twisty masses of C code that once you understand what they're
>supposed to achieve can be replaced by short pieces of clear python that
>*are* ten times smaller and run ten times faster or slightly longer pieces
>of C that are *slightly* faster than the python but harder to maintain.
-- 

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9635

Op 24-2-2019 09:58, Eric Stevens wrote:
> It's more than 25 years since I wrote C code but I will always
> remember the first time I encountered the problem I have hinted at. I
> had written 5 lines of code but then over the next few days after
> succeeding revisions I had reduced the 5 lines to only one which did
> the same thing as the original 5. I came back to it a few months later
> and found that I was damned if I could quite work out what that one
> line of code was supposed to be doing. I never did manage to get back
> to the original five lines.

http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/story-of-mel.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9637

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 21:58:59 +1300
Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> It's more than 25 years since I wrote C code but I will always
> remember the first time I encountered the problem I have hinted at. I
> had written 5 lines of code but then over the next few days after
> succeeding revisions I had reduced the 5 lines to only one which did
> the same thing as the original 5. I came back to it a few months later
> and found that I was damned if I could quite work out what that one
> line of code was supposed to be doing. I never did manage to get back
> to the original five lines.

	This is a temptation that should be avoided unless it is absolutely
necessary to optimise the code that far (it is also worth checking that it
actually does optimise the code - sometimes the compiler will do a better
job with verbose and clear code than with dense obscure code). It is also
always worthwhile writing a comment that describes what the code is
supposed to achieve ahead of anything that might be less than blindingly
obvious - note "what it is supposed to achieve" *not* "how it works").

	C programmers are far from the worst offenders in this regard. Perl
provides so many opportunities to shave a bit of source off and make it
harder to read that some regard it as executable line noise - for example:

#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)

	That is an implementation of RSA encryption lifted from the
interwebs, I couldn't begin to tell you how it works but if anyone put code
like that up for review at work (except as a joke) I'd expect them to be
fired pretty quickly!

	Perl can of course be used to write perfectly readable intentional
code but far too many people choose not to.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9638

On 24/02/2019 08:58, Eric Stevens wrote:
> I had reduced the 5 lines to only one which did
> the same thing as the original 5. I came back to it a few months later
> and found that I was damned if I could quite work out what that one
> line of code was supposed to be doing. I never did manage to get back
> to the original five lines.

I used to do that back in te day of cross compiling for 8/16 bit 
microprocessors, when sometimes thet made for tighter code and we were 
always short of ROM space, but when I looked again at assembler output 
from a 21st century Gnu C compiler, I gave up.

It did a far far better job of optimising the 5 lines than I could ever 
do...

Now with 'inline functions' as well its possible to write blocks of code 
that are only ever used once, as pseudo subrioutines, to futher allow 
the code to be written with clarity in mind, and let the compiler take 
the strain of turning it into tight code.

As far as stuff like python perl and so on - I hate them really. PHP is 
nad enough. After spending well over two days trying to get a massive 
MySQL data base read formatted and outputted asnd running into 'out of 
memory' despite anything I did to PHPs access to memory, I gave up, 
rewriote te query in C, called from PHP,  and was rewarded with far 
faster response and no memory issues at all.

I've had similar issues with complex MySql queries. Sometimes it's 
easier to do the fancy algorithm in C efficiently rather than write the 
complex SQL query. In short I hate interpreted languages mainly, because 
in general the memory management and actual algorithms used by the 
libraries are not under my control.

And the syntax of a procedural language WITH COMMENTS being used to 
process database data or strings, is far easier to follow than a nested 
sets of INNER JOINS in Mysql or incomprehensible phrases in Klingon 
'regexp' :-)



-- 
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9642

"The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote

| As far as stuff like python perl and so on - I hate them really. PHP is
| nad enough. After spending well over two days trying to get a massive
| MySQL data base read formatted and outputted asnd running into 'out of
| memory' despite anything I did to PHPs access to memory, I gave up,

  To paraphrase Clint Eastwood (in one of his Dirty Harry
manifestations, I think), a scripting language has just
got to know its limitations.

   People get into so many arguments about best languages
or the most macho language. Slashdot likes to do silly articles
about "top 10". (Currently javascript, which is not even a
programming language, is #1, based only on how many
searches are done for sample code or tips.) But aren't
there really just two factors to consider?

1) What do you have an affinity for?
2) What do you need in the result?

  Anything that compiles to native code is efficient. Java
and .Net are bloated messes on desktop but just the
ticket server-side. Script is quick and very useful,
but it's interpreted, with limited data types, and therefore
not suited for heavy lifting. They all have their pros and
cons. Well, except maybe Perl. That's just too ugly to be
allowed to survive. :) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9645

On 24/02/2019 13:48, Mayayana wrote:
>   Perl. That's just too ugly to be
> allowed to survive.:)  

Agreed.



-- 
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9682

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 08:48:49 -0500
"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> Currently javascript, which is not even a programming language

	How is JavaScript not a programming language ? Last I looked it
fell into the "functional language" class of programming languages and has
several stand alone implementations as well as being the default language
for web page (dis)enhancement. It's not one I would choose but it most
certainly is a programming language.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9706

"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote
|
| > Currently javascript, which is not even a programming language
|
| How is JavaScript not a programming language ? Last I looked it
| fell into the "functional language" class of programming languages and has
| several stand alone implementations as well as being the default language
| for web page (dis)enhancement. It's not one I would choose but it most
| certainly is a programming language.
|

   It's an interesting situation. More and more, things
that people call "apps" are little more than webpages,
while webpages are often bigger than a medium-sized
software program -- bloated with 2+ MB of script. So
it's not as clear cut as it used to be. And I can see
how you might call js programming code. But then, why
not HTML? It's code. It's interpreted to produce a
useful result. CSS? Of course. AutoIt? Apple script?
If someone pastes a few lines of js code they found
online, along with a line to call in a copy of jquery, are
they programmers or inexperienced web designers?
Then should we say that any text, such as a
commandline, is programming, while clicking a button
is using?

  I used to know someone who spent his day using
Perl to move various files around on a big company
network. Is he a programmer? I'd call him a secretary.
I don't mean that smugly. I just mean that's really the
job he's doing. The actual code writing is minor,
menial work.
  He's not a programmer any more than a secretary is
a writer for using a typewriter. And he didn't call himself
a programmer. I guess he probably thought of himself
as a clerk.

  I'm currently working on a little HTA Windows utility,
powered by VBScript in IE, to clean up and reformat HTML
files that have been converted from PDF. I've made
similar tools to unpack program installers, extract icons;
I even wrote an image editor. It's fun, quick and easy.
The IE DOM is so powerful and adaptable that one can
basically write complex GUI software using only script.
But I wouldn't call VBScript a programming language.
It's simple, intepreted and most of its power comes from
using COM objects.
  At some level of wrapper it begins to seem misleading
to talk about programming.

  For me that's all the more relevant these days, as big
companies begin to create rental software. Much of that,
like Adobe CS or Office 365, is fullscale compiled desktop
software that pretends to be online in order to justify
rental fees. Other things are mostly online and act like
they're local.
  Then there are Java and .Net, in the middle, not actually
running directly on an OS platform. We can call those
programming code, but the distinction is important. A 2
MB editor written in C/C++ is a 2 MB editor. A 2 MB editor
written in Java or .Net is going to require that I install
an OS wrapper of hundreds of MB. It's really glorified,
OO script.

  So I don't have a problem with you calling js a programming
language, but I just call it a scripting language. A programming
language is something I'd use to write compiled software that
runs on top of an OS platform. And while I use a lot of software,
I have no intention of using Microsoft's Metro webpage-based
thingies.

  Ironically, for a lot of companies and programmers now,
writing to an OS API is viewed like a horse and buggy. People
are largely unaware that they're writing to levels of wrappers.
A lot of .Net programmers think they're using a newer, separate
API.
  I noticed recently with the Google and Bing REST APIs for
maps that compiled software is being "deprecated" and the
terms of use for various map services are vague when it
comes to compiled desktop software. Bing doesn't even allow
streetside images via REST.
  Those companies are so focused on services and ad income
from phones that their APIs have also become services of a kind.
You don't use a toolbox they've provided, as with an OS API.
Rather, you get a few simple tools that are designed to use
their services. The programmers, if you want to call them that,
are more like pizza delivery drivers where they used to be
pizza chefs.... But I suppose that once all pizza is microwaved
and delivered, a pizza delivery driver will be called a "chef".
And their status will be valorized by putting lots of obscure
words, curly brackets, and pointless semi-colons on their
uniforms. :) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9715

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 09:25:26 -0500
"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>    It's an interesting situation. More and more, things
> that people call "apps" are little more than webpages,
> while webpages are often bigger than a medium-sized
> software program -- bloated with 2+ MB of script. So
> it's not as clear cut as it used to be. And I can see
> how you might call js programming code. But then, why
> not HTML? It's code. It's interpreted to produce a

	JavaScript is (ignoring resource limits) a Turing complete
language, HTML is not.

> useful result. CSS? Of course. AutoIt? Apple script?

	CSS no (it is only Turing complete with a human being in the loop),
AutoIt never heard of it, AppleScript yes.

	Read about Turing Completeness, then answer the questions yourself.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9725

"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote

| CSS no (it is only Turing complete with a human being in the loop),
| AutoIt never heard of it, AppleScript yes.
|
| Read about Turing Completeness, then answer the questions yourself.
|

  That's one way to look at it, but you completely
missed the points I was making. By your definition
an abacus is a programming language. So what? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web