[plug] [link] Programming languages - and their faults

[Andrew Pamment]

On Wed, 2003-05-14 at 18:36, Craig Ringer wrote:
> >>It's often used inappropriately.
> > 
> > That's not a flaw in C per se.
> 
> True. Unfortunately, "everything is written in C" and "everybody knows 
> C" which tends to inflate the problem further. Not a problem with the 
> language, but the language - at least its common usage - is becoming a 
> problem. At least, the continuing upward trend in security problems 
> would tend to support that, anyway.

poo. i like c. i use c. what does it matter what programming language if
it does the job? Ken and Dennis are my heros and i have a shrine where i
worship them. And security problems? Perhaps that is a problem of
computer programmers stuffing up and not the language they write in. 

So what if C is tiny. Its just a way we talk to the computer, in the end
it's all binary, and it's what we tell it that counts.

length checking of strings? so what. bah. humbug. in the end it is
stupid people who make mestakes that mess things up. don't blame c for
your security exploits blame the programmer that made the mistakes.

i am contiually annoyed by people claiming something that they dont
understand sucks. it doesnt suck, you just dont know it well enoutgh. i
mean people say that cobol sucks. well it does the job, and business
have used it for a long time and it works for them. so what if it's old
and you could do the same in one of those new fangled languages. 

dont say c sucks. it offends me. just because something is old doesn't
mean the new versions are better. so what if c plus plus has more object
orientaited thinking behind it? so what? so what if peoples code looks
like spagethiee to you? so what? it worked, it still works. c plus plus
is just to make the programmers life easier. and i dont think a
programmers life should be easy. hell no. a programmers life should be
very hard and complicated. it seperates the true programmers from the
college graduates who want to make money. programmers shouldnt have it
easy. they shouldnt be able to sit down and see, oh this program has
lots of nice comments and is well documented, i can understand what it
is doing and can fix it. thats just not how it should be. programmers
should sit down and see oh my god this code looks like i am reading tea
leaves. what the hell does it mean. i will have to consult the gods. and
then they should stay up all night and order pizza and fix it.

thats the way it should be. i am tired of people thinking that code
should be easy to understand. it should be as cryptic as possible. that
way real programmers (who don't need comments - the code is theior
comments) can do the job. and when real programmers do the job, then you
can rest assured that the program runs well and doesn't require
VBRUN300.DLL. yeah thats the way it should be.

yeah, i am annoyed. this whole world is going down the toilet because
people dont respect c. computers become more buggy and security
exploitable not because of the language people write in, but because of
the inability of the programmer.

my 3 cents

from andrew
ps. i have had a few so excuse me if i dont make sense

 

-- 
Andrew Pamment 
(http: scarab.ath.cx) (MSN: thegodsthemselves at hotmail.com)
(ICQ: 136239083)      (Yahoo!: apamment)

"Abashed the Devil stood, And felt how awful goodness is, and saw Virtue
in her shape how lovely; saw, and pined His loss." John Milton.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.plug.org.au/pipermail/plug/attachments/20030514/413d97f8/attachment.pgp>