From: tnp@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 04/02/2026 20:09, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
   Every generation has its 'perfect' language It was Pascal. Then LISP.   
   Then ADA and  Modula 2. C++.   
      
   But the languages that have lasted are C, COBOL, FORTRAN....   
      
   --   
   The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before   
   its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.   
      
   Anon.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)