How about you start writing C++ and not C/C++ code?
The two languages are so different, it isn't fair to mention them as if they were the same.
I cannot consistently write safe C/C++ code
41–50 of 123 posts
Re: I cannot consistently write safe C/C++ code
#42> I cannot consistently write safe C/C++ code. I'm not ashamed of that; I don't know anyone else who can. With respect, two mistaken beliefs: 1: Only a few programmers can write safe code. 2: One will naturally encounter such programmers in the course of a prestigious career working for a high-profile web browser company. But mediocre programmers consistently write safe C/C++ code, every day. They do it in the contex…
That's a different kind of safe than the OP means. You mean "does not crash, produces the right results", he means "can'te be hacked".
A non-networked engine control unit is super hard to hack by simple virtue of being unreachable from the internet. I bet if you run a fuzzer against your perfectly safe aviation code you'd find lots and lots of security issues. But those issues aren't important.
Re: I cannot consistently write safe C/C++ code
#43> I cannot consistently write safe C/C++ code. I'm not ashamed of that; I don't know anyone else who can. With respect, two mistaken beliefs: 1: Only a few programmers can write safe code. 2: One will naturally encounter such programmers in the course of a prestigious career working for a high-profile web browser company. But mediocre programmers consistently write safe C/C++ code, every day. They do it in the contex…
The aviation/automotive code doesn't get deployed on to millions of personal computers of tons varieties and locals and probed by professional hackers endlessly for vulnerabilities. The aviation/automotive code runs in very well defined environment, almost completely locked down and unavailable for user interaction for most parts. Its unfair to compare them with open ended applications like browsers which has to handle tons of formats, extensibility APIs and very complex and often incomplete protocols with numerous versions and compatibility issues. Two very different worlds.
Re: I cannot consistently write safe C/C++ code
#44I've worked in "IT security" as a C programmer for about 10 years. I both agree and disagree with this article. A competent C/C++ programmer will have a lot less of problems like buffer overflows and crap like that, I don't think a buffer overflow has been found in any code I've written during my 10 years as a C programmer. I have still written code that has security issues though, most of them stem from poorly desig…
This is a rebuttal against "use a safe language and all your security problems go away entirely" but that is not generally the argument being advanced. The argument that is generally advanced is "use a safe language and some of your security problems go away entirely". Put another way, people are arguing for airbags to become much more common, and your rebuttal is "I've gotten into some accidents, and I've gotten hur…
I agree, but I still believe that one issue here is the lack of understanding of what the process around software development should be.
We would get rid of some issues if we used a safer language, but the real issue is that we don't find the issues, the attacker does instead. So people are finding the issues, but why are not the people writing the software finding them?
I believe that you should have a development team that make sure there are no issues to be found, no matter the language you are writing your application in. That means you run the same tests, no matter the language, so in the end it doesn't matter what language you write it in. And you chose a language that fits the problem, you don't make the language fit the problem.
So I think your analogy of an airbag is wrong in some sense. The issue isn't weather we have an airbag or not, the issue is that we don't test if we have an airbag and then go "Whoops, the airbag didn't deploy in the crash and somebody died".
We as programmers like to think of ourselves as engineers, but we don't treat the profession as engineers, we very often deploy code we know are not tested, we might even know it is buggy, you open yourself up to a lot of damage if you do that as a bridge builder (even though it has happened).
I'm tired and this turned into a rant, but I hope that my point comes across.
EDIT: I don't mean that we should write bug free code, I mean that we should strive for code without security issues. It can be done, I work at a place where we have written code for 15 years, not only C code, or more without any remote exploitable holes.
Re: I cannot consistently write safe C/C++ code
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good risk management is about cost vs payoff analysis. To address the risk of car accident, first you stop juggling chainsaws while driving, then you start to wear seatbelts, and then you start thinking about how the remaining inevitable driving mistakes can be mitigated through technology or practices.
I guess using C is analogous is juggling chainsaws in your analogy. But is that actually less safe? Consider a component actually responsible for preventing car accidents, such as the anti-lock brake system. It will consist of input sensors, output signals, and an embedded computer running some code. All of these components have gone through an extensive qualification process. On the software side, the coding standar…
Rust has yet to prove that.
Re: I cannot consistently write safe C/C++ code
#46> I cannot consistently write safe C/C++ code. I'm not ashamed of that; I don't know anyone else who can. With respect, two mistaken beliefs: 1: Only a few programmers can write safe code. 2: One will naturally encounter such programmers in the course of a prestigious career working for a high-profile web browser company. But mediocre programmers consistently write safe C/C++ code, every day. They do it in the contex…
A lot of the "safe" code written in embedded systems is only safe because the inputs are already safe. You don't get to exploit any bugs in a parser when the messages are created by a system under your control. Cars, planes, trains, medical devices, etc. don't really have interfaces to the outside world that can easily be exploited. Those interfaces they have get exploited. See for example https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-hig...
Re: I cannot consistently write safe C/C++ code
#47It makes me smile when someone starts off a complaint with something similar to "I've been programing in C++ for x decades. I have y qualifications that should impress you. I worked at z company which should impress you further. Yet, despite this, I cannot write safe C++ code".
The author's post, in particular, is excellent as it follows this token introduction with "I don't know anyone else who can write safe C++ code, either". This is further strengthened by "people I know to be skilled programmers (based on what, I don't know), have never professed that they can write safe C++ code, and therefore people who do, are obviously suffering from some psychological effect".
I mean, really? You can't do it, and your friends can't do it, so no one can do it? Even though there is a world of software out there that does exactly what you say can't be done? And further, anyone who says they can do it must be less-skilled and suffering for a form of illusory superiority complex? Get over yourself.
How ironic that he knows about the Dunning-Kruger effect, but fails to apply it to himself.
Re: I cannot consistently write safe C/C++ code
#48> I cannot consistently write safe C/C++ code. I'm not ashamed of that; I don't know anyone else who can. With respect, two mistaken beliefs: 1: Only a few programmers can write safe code. 2: One will naturally encounter such programmers in the course of a prestigious career working for a high-profile web browser company. But mediocre programmers consistently write safe C/C++ code, every day. They do it in the contex…
> But mediocre programmers consistently write safe C/C++ code, every day. I think perhaps you and the author have different interpretations of "consistently". You might also differ on whether "safe code" is safe just because it hasn't failed (or been reported!) yet under current inputs. > They do it as part of a much larger safety process, that is designed to be robust against faults at all levels So, since we seem t…
OK. I also made mistakes and I understand you. However you should perhaps move the disclaimer to the top of your post, so people have a chance to abort reading your post.
Re: I cannot consistently write safe C/C++ code
#49The worst thing about these kinds of articles is the troves of junior programmers that never touched systems programming with a stick before but will read this on hackernews today and sit in the office tomorrow lecturing seasoned coders how they´re dumb for not having seen the light and using an unsafe language. This is how stupid cargo cult gets made, guys. It's easy to repeat some talking points that you found on t…
Fact 1, the article doesn't mention Rust a single time. Fact 2, mostly safe systems programming languages exist since ESPOL (1961), 10 years older than C, and with a great linage of attempts of safe systems programming outside AT&T walls, so plenty of alternatives are available So as someone with more than 10 years of C and C++ experience, among other programming languages, before focusing on Java and .NET, I find th…
I feel you're missing my point. The article doesn't mention rust but my comment was phrased in the context of the current rust craze on HN.
As I said, I agree with you and the author that all of us do inevitably make mistakes. I also agree that the c-family of languages makes it somewhat more easy to shoot yourself in the foot in a bad way than others. I'm not saying innovation on safe languages is bad, or that using safe languages is bad.
My disagreement with you and the sibling is probably on the point of whether one can learn something useful about the limitations and pitfalls of c-family languages by reading a single-page all-opinion post about it. You and the sibling appear to believe so, I do not. I don't think we will come to a complete agreement on this, but I certainly understand and respect your and sibling's view.
Re: I cannot consistently write safe C/C++ code
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are still to many C/C++ wannabes There are still too many people using the term C/C++ :] It never really was a thing, even in the beginning (I mean, just take e.g. destruction at scope exit: that alone makes it a very different language) and now even less with the new standards. Anyway: a language can be considered awesome by people, despite it's flaws. Always has been, never will change, as there will probably…
> as there will probably never be languages without any flaws Yes, but we can try to develop better language. Rust is such a try. And that's good. > Sure, but I don't belong to that fraction of programmers who think they write flawless code or develop a cult with old, error prone languages such as C. The important thing is that we are not discussing about programmers making mistakes, but about a language which is old…
it belongs to the museum
I agree that in C it's way easier to make mistakes than in e.g. Rust, but I don't agree that (or whatever other reason) is proof that it belongs in a museum. Take microPython for instance: it's a relatively young project written in C, it allows running a pretty complete Python 3 implementation on a variety of microprocessors as well as on PC/mac/... Suppose we put C in a museum, what do we use instead to achieve the same functionality?