Re: The Case for Rust (in any system)

On 05-09-24 19:45, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> Alan Somers wrote in

>   |The real takeaway here is that C is no longer sufficient for writing
>   |high quality code in the 2020s.  Everyone needs to adapt their tools.
> 
> I *totally* speak against this.
> Quite the opposite i claim that C was safe already fifty years

Is that a joke? Do you have any evidence? It sounds like wishful 
thinking to me.

When I explain to my young colleagues that learnt to code in Java and 
Rust how K&R C function definitions "worked", their eyes open wide in 
amazement.

> ago, it is just that the occasional one does not realize it.
> *Nothing* prevents you from using a string object instead of
> direct memory accesses, a vector object instead of arrays managed
> via realloc(), and all that.  *Nothing
> If *you* do not do that that is your fault and you are a bad
> programmer; moreover, you should not be allowed to vote in
> a democratic environment (surely you do not read all the
> magazines and newspapers, and watch or hear to policital
> emissions, in order to build yourself a *real* opinion), be
> enabled to drive a car, and what else not.

I'm not sure that I follow your argument. Are you saying that you can 
build memory safety into C code and that if someone doesn't so they are 
a bad programmer? What's the point - why not just use a memory safe 
language?

A+
Paul