211–220 of 363 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I surely get C, having to deal with its casualties in DevSecOps. I have been "getting" C since 1992, across Xenix, DG/UX, HP-UX, Solaris, AIX, FreeBSD, Linux, Amiga, Windows 3.x,.....
You once claimed C requires UNIX like OS to run.
Without UNIX spreading with its free beer into universities, C would have been a footnote on the history of system programming languages.
Based on another thread - I think the following topic should be an interesting one for HN to chew on: If someone wanted to write systems type of programming (whether it be embedded or Unix tools or even writing a library), should they go for C (C23) or Rust today?
D is a better modern C than Rust. Rust is very nice, but if you just want a safer C that will actually make you more productive versus less productive until you understand how rust wants you to program then D is a better fit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You surely can, better read those CPU manuals about line bus controllers.
Have you? I used to write device drivers mostly on ARM architectures and I have newer seen an instruction which would let me precisely control CPU instruction ordering or what it does with cache that I couldn't do in C.
Whenever I use C I use it for the express purpose of supporting ancient platforms. These platforms often only support C89, so that’s the dialect of C to which I restrict myself. If I am able to ignore those old platforms, I use C++. RAII is just so convenient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The exception that confirms the rule.
The exception? It's standard practice for distros to compile with hardening flags, and if RH submits the bugs they find with Coverity upstream, that protects the 1000s of C projects they package.
https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2021/12/this-shouldnt...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, Eiffel is such a popular and widely used language, with a great toolset. /s
The amount of users doesn't change the fact of the tooling quality, but no wonder, UNIX folks tend to only take free beer, so what do they know about fine wine.
If you disagree, please provide a link to something medium sized and useful written in Eifel.
I can't tell if this is serious. Surely if you're still using C now it's for legacy reasons. And if using it for legacy reasons you are likely stuck using an old C standard. So who will use C23?
Sounds like you're not really in touch with the real word. C has many benefits and it is super practical. Yes, you can write unsafe code, but safety isn't always your #1 priority. There are also tools you can use to identify issues, which will mitigate risks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I surely get C, having to deal with its casualties in DevSecOps. I have been "getting" C since 1992, across Xenix, DG/UX, HP-UX, Solaris, AIX, FreeBSD, Linux, Amiga, Windows 3.x,.....
Well, then, you must know it's not really a big deal to write code with proper memory checks.
https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/opmemc-1/memor...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You once claimed C requires UNIX like OS to run.
I claim it yet again on this very comment. Without UNIX spreading with its free beer into universities, C would have been a footnote on the history of system programming languages.
Here is where you claim C requires UNIX like OS:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20828974
Let me tell you, in embedded development we run C on bare metal or under RTOS. There is no UNIX in sight. And the code is portable to many CPU architectures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You once claimed C requires UNIX like OS to run.
And he was right. He didn't mean it as a statement of fact (which would be wrong, and he already knew it).
His comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20828974