From: OFeem1987@teleworm.us   
      
   Richard Kettlewell wrote this post by blinking in Morse code:   
      
   > The Natural Philosopher  writes:   
   >>   
   >>    
   >>>   
   >> All languages are error prone.   
   >   
   > They are not all error-prone in _the same way_, and C stands out as   
   > especially fragile. There are whole classes of vulnerability that either   
   > don’t exist in other languages or need the programmer to much more   
   > deliberately go ‘off piste’ before they can happen.   
      
   How about assembler? :-)   
      
   >> And blaming that for deficiencies in programmer quality  is just   
   >> sticking your head in the sand.   
   >   
   > I’m not say that there aren’t lazy and incompetent programmers. I   
   > remember a colleague at a previous job proposing that we could work   
   > faster by skipping bounds checking in network-facing code, because we   
   > “knew” what maximum sizes the inputs would be. Obviously in C the   
   > consequences (had anyone paid attention to that individual) would have   
   > been vulnerabilites.  In a language with automated bounds checking the   
   > question wouldn’t even have arisen.   
      
   I dunno, man, the Linux kernel is written and C and it works   
   pretty well and safely.   
      
   --   
   If you hype something and it succeeds, you're a genius -- it wasn't a   
   hype.  If you hype it and it fails, then it was just a hype.   
   		-- Neil Bogart   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)