41–50 of 158 posts
People love to talk all sorts of trash on this kind of stack but it's really quite solid for what it does. If anyone was ever curious what a sizeable codebase in this kind of code would even look like, check out the source code for undeadly.org [1]. Yeah these people may be crazy but they're also OpenBSD developers and we really love to see what we can get away with using nothing other than what's available in the ba…
If you're going to promote a stack, try at least to showcase all its components in the first example you give. Where is the SQLite part in your "BSD, C, httpd, SQLite" ? https://learnbchs.org/easy.html Hello world apps don't mean much.
s/C/NIM Why don’t more folks use NIM for web development. Seems like the perfect blend of performance, ergonomics and productivity.
If you're going to promote a stack, try at least to showcase all its components in the first example you give. Where is the SQLite part in your "BSD, C, httpd, SQLite" ? https://learnbchs.org/easy.html Hello world apps don't mean much.
Lots of opinions but little facts in the comment. I'd love to see an experiment with people using that and their preferred web stack. Is this really slower to develop? By how much? Is this really unsecure? Is this really simpler, faster?
It seems pretty crazy to write web-facing apps in C, with no memory safety at all. (They do have "pledge" but even in the most restricted case, this still leaves full access to database)
It's definitely contrary to modern assumptions about web app security, but it's interesting to see web apps that are secure because they use OS security features as they were designed to be used, rather than web apps that do things that are insecure from an OS-perspective, like handling requests from multiple users in the same process, but are secure because they do it with safe programming languages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t “C++ is too complex for me” a decent reason?
Object Pascal/Free Pascal then is the obvious choice, it is The better C.
For uptime.is I’ve used a stack which I’ve started calling BLAH because of LISP instead of C.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t “C++ is too complex for me” a decent reason?
It totally is, as long as you don't use C instead. There are plenty of good, less complex languages than C++ out there: Java is quite close and way, way less complex, for example. But C is non of them. Pointers are more complex in C than in C++ (pointer provenance). Casts are more complicated in C than in C++, as C++ named casts are less powerful and therefore give you less opportunity to shoot yourself in the foot.…
Thanks.
I'd be fine with this, even totally on-board, if C weren't so awful with respect to text. You don't even have to worry too much about free()ing your malloc()s if you design around short-lived processes. But this is just asking for security concerns among the tangled web of string and input processing your bespoke C routines are likely to develop into. Pair it with a better, more modern, and safer native-compiled lang…
> Pair it with a better, more modern, and safer native-compiled language and get the same effect. Zig, Nim, Go, hell even Carp. I love how trollish it is not to talk about Rust in that context.