Re: VMS

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.