Re: VMS

On 6/20/25 4:00 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:

On 6/19/25 3:40 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:>

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
    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.

 The problem is not just a subset of unsafe functions. The whole language
is riddled with unsafe semantics.

   That's where human IQ is *supposed* to cut in ...

There is some movement towards fixing the easy issues, e.g. [1]. But the
wider issues are a lot harder to truly fix, so much so that one of the
more promising options is an architecture extension[2]; and there
remains considerable resistance[3] in the standards body to fixing other
issues, despite their recurring role in defects and vulnerabilities.
 [1] https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3322.pdf
[2] https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/security/ctsrd/cheri/
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRgoEKrTxXY
 Most languages after C designed these issues out, one way or another.
The clever bit is figuring out how to combine performance and safety,
and that’s what language designers have been working out, increasingly
successfully.

   Oh, just a question ... how do we KNOW they've
   successfully designed-out all these problems ???
   How many more obscure issues were created ???
   Just sayin' ....
   Any stuff THIS complex, EXPECT lots and lots of
   hidden problems - so bad humans and even 'AI'
   are not going to detect it up-front. It's in the
   nature of what we've made and is getting worse.