Ken Thompson on languages and safety
(from @peterseibel 's book, Coders at Work)pic.twitter.com/RfSsPCrUFo
Show this thread
-
Am I misreading this? Is Thompson saying that a ping of death is no worse than a something that allows you to take control of the machine?
The next part of the interview asks that exact same question! I have to admit that I don't really understand Thompson's line of reasoningpic.twitter.com/o8tJwqnldx
-
-
I understand the literal argument that there are different types of bugs and that preventing one type doesn't necessarily prevent others.
-
but I don't see why that means that we shouldn't use languages (or processes or whatever) that prevent some types of bugs
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I think he's arguing that classification of bugs doesn't matter, since "don't write bugs" handles them all in all languages. :P
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Knuth is also advocating some rather unorthodox views on reusability in same book iirc. Don't think geniuses advice are for the public
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
1/ I have to agree with you, I don't follow that chain of thought at all. And I prefer working in C/C++ to Java for a variety of reasons ..
-
2/ but it seems almost as if Thompson is deliberately downplaying the costs of C/C++ and that's not how to approach such things, IMO
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As I read it, he glosses over that question entirely.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.