The core principle of computer-science is to continue moving forward with tech, and to leave behind the stuff that doesn’t work.
I’m not sure you realize you’re proving OP’s point.
Rewriting projects from scratch by definition represent big step backwards because you’re wasting resources to deliver barely working projects that have a fraction of the features that the legacy production code already delivered and reached a stable state.
And you are yet to present a single upside, if there is even one.
At this point it’s literally easier to slowly port to a better language than it is to try and ‘fix’ C/C++.
You are just showing the world you failed to read the article.
Also, it’s telling that you opt to frame the problem as "a project is written in C instead of <insert pet language> instead of actually secure and harden existing projects.
And you are yet to present a single upside, if there is even one.
This is a flippant statement, honestly, as it disregards the premise of the discussion. It’s memory safety. That’s the upside. The author even linked to memory safety bugs in OpenSSL. They might still exist elsewhere. (I realize there is a narrow class of memory bugs that C compilers understand, but it’s just that, a narrow class). We have scant way of knowing whether or not they exist without significant testing effort that is not likely to happen. And it would be fighting a losing battle anyway, because someone is writing new C code to maintain these legacy systems.
This is a flippant statement, honestly, as it disregards the premise of the discussion. It’s memory safety.
You’re completely ignoring even the argument you’re supposedly commenting,let alone the point it makes. You’re parroting cliches while purposely turning a blind eye to the point made in the blog that yes C can be memory safe. Likewise, Rust also has CVEs due to memory safety bugs. So, beyond these cliches, what exactly are you trying to argue?
Rewriting projects from scratch by definition represent big step backwards because you’re wasting resources to deliver barely working projects that have a fraction of the features that the legacy production code already delivered and reached a stable state.
Joel’s point was about commercial products not programming languages. I’m not the one misunderstanding here. When people talk about using Rust, it’s not talking about rewriting every single thing ever written in C/C++. It’s about leaving C/C++ behind and moving on to something that doesn’t have the issues of the past. This is not about large scale commercial rewrites. It’s about C’s inability to deal with these problems.
You are just showing the world you failed to read the article.
sure thing bud.
Also, it’s telling that you opt to frame the problem as "a project is written in C instead of <insert pet language> instead of actually secure and harden existing projects.
I didn’t say that and you know it. Also it’s quite telling (ooh, I can say the same things you can) that you think “better language” means “pet language”. Actually laughable.
I’m not sure you realize you’re proving OP’s point.
Rewriting projects from scratch by definition represent big step backwards because you’re wasting resources to deliver barely working projects that have a fraction of the features that the legacy production code already delivered and reached a stable state.
And you are yet to present a single upside, if there is even one.
You are just showing the world you failed to read the article.
Also, it’s telling that you opt to frame the problem as "a project is written in C instead of <insert pet language> instead of actually secure and harden existing projects.
This is a flippant statement, honestly, as it disregards the premise of the discussion. It’s memory safety. That’s the upside. The author even linked to memory safety bugs in OpenSSL. They might still exist elsewhere. (I realize there is a narrow class of memory bugs that C compilers understand, but it’s just that, a narrow class). We have scant way of knowing whether or not they exist without significant testing effort that is not likely to happen. And it would be fighting a losing battle anyway, because someone is writing new C code to maintain these legacy systems.
You’re completely ignoring even the argument you’re supposedly commenting,let alone the point it makes. You’re parroting cliches while purposely turning a blind eye to the point made in the blog that yes C can be memory safe. Likewise, Rust also has CVEs due to memory safety bugs. So, beyond these cliches, what exactly are you trying to argue?
Joel’s point was about commercial products not programming languages. I’m not the one misunderstanding here. When people talk about using Rust, it’s not talking about rewriting every single thing ever written in C/C++. It’s about leaving C/C++ behind and moving on to something that doesn’t have the issues of the past. This is not about large scale commercial rewrites. It’s about C’s inability to deal with these problems.
sure thing bud.
I didn’t say that and you know it. Also it’s quite telling (ooh, I can say the same things you can) that you think “better language” means “pet language”. Actually laughable.