Re: VMS

On 6/15/25 10:24 AM, Rich wrote:

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

   I've nothing AGAINST Rust ... though frankly it seems
   redundant, you could do it almost as easily in 'C'.
   Too many 'new languages' just seem to be 'C' knock-offs
   with crappier syntax.

 Rust's big claim to fame was/is memory safety -- that you can't have
buffer overflows or writes to unallocated memory.   And that by making
such actions impossible, Rust programs can not suffer from the security
breaches that occur when someone exploits a buffer overflow in an
existing C program.

   That IS important these days. A huge percentage of
   hacks seem to be exploitation of buffer overflows -
   and M$ has NEVER stamped-out that problem. There
   are 'C' programming practices that can reduce the
   problem, but it seems few USE those even to this day
   no matter how much the manuals scream.

In essence it does for you all the "checking error codes" and "checking
buffer sizes for sufficient space before writing" that C programmers
have to had manually, and sometimes forget to include.

   If writing long boring code, esp if it's just PART
   of some larger app you're not in control of, it IS
   tempting to cut corners.
   REALLY good code - 'C' or otherwise - can often be
   as much as one third 'fuck-up prevention'. I did lots
   of custom code for company apps and just dealing with
   every way clueless users could screw up was literally
   25-33% of the code. Defending against Vlad's boyz
   now makes it even more difficult.
   Otherwise however, the RUST syntax in general just
   seems more unpleasant than 'C'. It's like someone
   deliberately wanted to screw with people.
   There are SOME in these groups who really HATE
   Rust, treat it like an invasion of demonic powers.
   It's not nearly THAT bad IMHO ... I'm just never
   likely to use it.