C is syntactic sugar around assembly. Saying C is outdated is like saying assembly is outdated. At that point, just admit you're not interested in computers

I want to create software that doesn’t harm users. That doesn’t at all imply that I’m not interested in computers. In fact guaranteeing safety for users shows a profound interest in computers.

But assembly _is_ outdated, at least for the purpose of authoring large community software projects.

> C is syntactic sugar around assembly.

The C abstract machine, and the undefined behavior shenanigans compilers are pulling off says otherwise.

> C is syntactic sugar around assembly

It isn't

As an example, see how C 'int', 'short', 'long' or whatever becomes actual different types

> just admit you're not interested in computers

I have the popcorn ready already for when the next C "hotshot" shoots himself in the foot yet again because he thinks a chainsaw without an emergency brake is just more fun

> chainsaw without an emergency brake is just more fun

Fun and fast!

> C is syntactic sugar around assembly.

Even if this is true (and I don't believe it is), it's not useful.

All programming languages are syntactic sugar around processor instructions

The design of io_uring has nothing to do with the language the Linux kernel is implemented in. And safer languages really can't provide guarantees when the issue at hand is designing a shared memory cross-executable (kernel⋄userspace) API.

Just having first class slice types, where your pointer is paired with a length, which allows for doing bounds checking automatically is a huge upgrade over C, even if it doesn't solve every other problem.

Security exploits from out of bounds access should not be happening today, bounds checking is a solved problem, and has been solved for decades.

Time to make the point that not even C authors were able to change WG14 mind on the necessity of having fat pointers.

https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/vararray.pdf

That's a pretty interesting paper. Thanks for sharing it. I wonder why Dennis Ritchie, with the weight his name carries, wasn't able to push it into mainstream implementation...

Because once a language is managed by ISO, that doesn't matter, the author gets one vote like everyone else.

So this shows how the majority of WG14 members see security in C.