News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Some Were Meant for C (2017) [pdf] by coldtea on Thursday April 25, 2019 @10:05AM (#19748218)
>Naturally it requires better compiler support than C authors were willing to implement.

Which is still the case with many things in Go, a language of close origin to C (though this time not about strings).

Re:Some Were Meant for C (2017) [pdf] by pjmlp on Thursday April 25, 2019 @11:08AM (#19748956)
It is interesting how in both cases they disregarded what was being made around them.
Re:Some Were Meant for C (2017) [pdf] by jstimpfle on Thursday April 25, 2019 @01:24PM (#19750392)
What was made around them was only ever the gorilla with jungle thing. Fine for small programs, or larger ones within walled gardens. But not fine for infrastructure work.
Re:Some Were Meant for C (2017) [pdf] by pjmlp on Thursday April 25, 2019 @01:38PM (#19750551)
Yet Multics was deemed safer than UNIX as per DoD security assement.

I guess security is not relevant as infrastructure work.

Re:Some Were Meant for C (2017) [pdf] by jstimpfle on Thursday April 25, 2019 @01:46PM (#19750653)
Oh, and what do they use today?

> I guess security is not relevant as infrastructure work.

...

Re:Some Were Meant for C (2017) [pdf] by pjmlp on Friday April 26, 2019 @04:08AM (#19755597)
Ada and even Java (PTC/Aonix) when security matters.