On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 11:16:51 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote:
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 10:21:05 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
...continue with C in the face of overwhelming evidence
it is the wrong thing to do.
yeah, the health fanatics who promote their crap to goverments
and insurance agencies, use very similar arguments about sugar,
salt, alchohol, this and that....
when really, it's all about moderation, not prohibition (or
increased taxes on things people say are bad).
and science is so dodgy these days, that even scientific
evidence requires evidence.
No, it is about costs and saving people lives.
It is cheaper to prevent diseases than trying to cure them
specially chronic ones that cause people's death.
Likewise, it is cheaper to prevent security exploits caused by
memory corruption by not having them, instead of having to pay
millions of dollars in compensation to everyone has was impacted
Thanks to AT&T not being able to sell UNIX, giving it by a
symbolic price for universities like Berkely, followed by a few
startups like Sun and SGI basing their OS on it.
Had AT&T been allowed to sell UNIX at the same price of VMS, OS/z
and others, and C wouldn't rule anywhere.
And if you like C so much, what are you doing in a safe systems
programming language forum?