#2597840 - safe, artist:awr-hey, rainbow dash, pegasus, anthro, g4, book, breasts, c (language), clothes, colored ear fluff, confused, dialogue, ear fluff, eyebrows, female, frown, half body, k&r, mare, one ear down, open mouth, programming, raised eyebrow, reading, shirt, simple background, solo, speech bubble, talking, unsafe, white background

Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!

Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!

https://twitter.com/awr_hey/status/1384410218180665344

Comments

Background Pony #707C

@Background Pony #4F12
Unsafe as in prone to security vulnerabilities. C is simple, but it’s not easy. We are humans and we have made, are making and will keep making mistakes. This is unavoidable. And in C mistakes can easily result in vulnerabilities.

Entire classes of vulnerabilities can be eliminated by simply using another, safer language. Of course, there’s always a tradeoff: maybe lower performance, maybe more mental effort, maybe slower compilation time… In most cases the tradeoff is worth it. There’s a reason website backends are no longer written in C.

Thanks for the *(char*)0 = 0; link, it’s interesting.

Posted 10 days ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Background Pony #4F12

What do you mean unsafe? Do you mean language breaks in some cases? Do you mean language breaks user in some cases? Or do you mean programming in C makes you pregnant?

Reference to this task: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFIqNZ8VbRY

TL;DR: You are clearly dereferencing null pointer, what do you intend to do? Do you intend to trap execution? Do you intend to tell this code is unreachable? Do you intend to actually write to zero address?

Posted 13 days ago Report

Link Quote Reply

LemonDrop

C++ Crazed

@a3x
Sure it has more features which can be a bad thing for language complexity, but not that many really. C89 is borderline unusable for the simple reason of not being able to place decls anywhere you want in a scope (only at the top). This really only was done because C89 is ancient and they had no idea how annoying that’d be at the time (well C got the idea from B, dunno why it decided to do that because I am pretty sure other languages at the time did allow it, but I digress).

As an aside C99’s designated initializers also are based and make code look a lot less cryptic and confusing with various APIs (like say Vulkan’s C API), so those are also quite nice.

Really C89 and C99 both have a ton of pitfalls in general due to being so old (being weakly typed really is the reason for most of the issues), I’d recommend a more modern language like Zig if you want to have a simple and fast language that is just more up to date in modern language design and safety features (or Rust as a more complex option but still sharing many of the same ideas).

Posted 2 years ago Report
Edited 2 years ago

Link Quote Reply

Background Pony #707C

Undefined behavior! _{*nasal demons appear*}

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

a3x

@byte[]
I believe c99 has too many comfort features. Meaning that the pitfalls of c89 are easier to find and walk into than those of c99 - and thereby I feel like averting more small errors, that usually would come up when debugging at the end.

Posted 3 years ago Report
Edited 3 years ago

Link Quote Reply

byte[]

Philomena Contributor

@a3x
I agree with you that C++ is borderline unreadable at any version, but why not use C99 instead?

Posted 3 years ago Report
Edited 3 years ago

Link Quote Reply

Background Human

CHS, Class of 20XX

@a3x
That’s the best “FOR SCIENCE!” ever.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

a3x

I still always default to writing C89 style, because I feel, it’s way more readable, than standard c++11+.
Here’s a contemporary example for why this image is actually pretty accurate: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=University-Ban-From-Linux-Dev

Posted 3 years ago Report
Edited 3 years ago

Link Quote Reply

Background Human

CHS, Class of 20XX

@flashman07
C is a good language for learning computer hardware. It’s assembly with better syntax. None of the fancy abstractions that characterize modern languages. You have to know how things work at the level of bits and bytes if you want to get anything done.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

I miss the show so much

That book should be kept around only as a historical reference today. It was a good book, but that was decades ago. If you really want to learn C today, use a more modern book that does not, for example, completely ignore any and all error checking/handling. You’re writing C, so properly validating input and fully handling errors is your #0 priority because the language does not do any of it for you.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Background Pony #4EFB

Skynet. Now with 20% more self-awareness.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

flashman07

Queen Chrysalis Minion

I still have that book from my university days. C is powerful but there are very few guard rails. You are responsible for making sure functions aren’t called with malicious/bad values.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Derpibooru

BBCode

Comments

nproxy.org