Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: VMS
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 16:14:38 +0100
Organization: A little, after lunch
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <1033tsu$3aqu$2@dont-email.me>
References: <wCqdnYde9MIbmND1nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <102ka4k$9umt$2@dont-email.me> <87tt4i9nw5.fsf@eder.anydns.info>
 <102l0h9$fjtb$5@dont-email.me>
 <Z2udned3u9ZgqtP1nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <slrn1054j9c.3ce8.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid>
 <PpudnVnCnvuYxc_1nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <wwva564xjps.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>
 <4_GdncCsf-Nqe8n1nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <1033nq7$1qj6$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 17:14:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="59005c96598adc071216bb379c5cedd9";
	logging-data="109406"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+rfA1PsSzrLQC14Suu19RFaOukKYX+SqY="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GtnEd1cBp3TVVtj8jMYQhTmLkAs=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <1033nq7$1qj6$2@dont-email.me>

On 20/06/2025 14:30, Rich wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> On 6/19/25 3:40 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> (Counting C++ as a dialect of C for the purposes of this posting, which
>>> isn’t true in general, but doesn’t really affect the point.)
>>>
>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>>>> On 6/18/25 1:30 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote at 03:03 this Sunday (GMT):
>>>
>>>>>>       Rust is perfectly OK ... but I don't see much advantage
>>>>>>       over plain 'C'. Lots of 'new langs' are like that, just
>>>>>>       'C' with nastier syntax.
>>>
>>> It is absolutely not C with different syntax. Language designers have
>>> learned a lot since C.
>>
>>
>>    Ummmmmmmm ... nothing GOOD that I can tell  :-)
>>
>>
>>>>> Rust I personally dislike the syntax of, AND its development team is
>>>>> apparently pretty controversial.
>>>>
>>>>     IMHO, stick to 'C' ... but use GOOD PRACTICES.
>>>
>>> The software industry has been trying this for decades now. It does not
>>> work.
>>
>>    At some point, soon, they need to start flagging
>>    the unsafe functions as ERRORS, not just WARNINGS.
> 
> That's not enough.  It is very easy in C to use a "safe" function
> unsafely.  Writing "safe" C code requires a very knowledgable (about
> C), very careful, programmer.  The vast majority of those writing C are
> neither.

Which raises the question of whether they ought to be allowed to write 
code at all.


-- 
Any fool can believe in principles -  and most of them do!