Ken Thompson on languages and safety
(from @peterseibel 's book, Coders at Work)pic.twitter.com/RfSsPCrUFo
Show this thread
-
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
-
-
Exactly. You don't deal with the costs in bugs of some languages/processes by pretending they aren't actually costs
-
The point is that we need better programmers. Not "better" languages. No language is safe, given a bad programmer.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
ken undervalues (IMHO) dynamic safety, but is correct w.r.t turning exploit into "mere" DoS. It's wrong to say this wouldn't happen in Java.
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.