> -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? > From: Nick Holland <n...@holland-consulting.net> > Date: Mon, December 04, 2017 7:45 am > To: misc@openbsd.org > > > On 12/03/17 20:19, bytevolc...@safe-mail.net wrote: > > I've always subscribed to the idea that too much safety results in too > > may idiots, and the same is true for all these "safe" programming > > languages. "Oh I don't have to write any form of bounds-checking, > > because the language will do it for me." > > > > To add further insult to injury, if the language's bounds checking kicks > > in first your program may do something worse than just corrupting its > > own memory. In my experience, apps written in these "safe" languages > > (usually web apps or bloatware) actually have been the most bug-ridden > > and bloated. >
> Idiots who shouldn't be coding, coding. > "safe" languages being trusted to be safe when in the hands of idiots. > Like you said. > > The more I see of "safe" languages, the more I love assembly. Most > people who call themselves programmers...shouldn't. > > Nick. The issue of being in base has been raised. Pretty important. Who would really want to spend such enormous amounts of time to add in yet another language? C is in base. Assembly is in base. But Perl is also in base. I don't think anyone would want to change all of the fantastic pkg_* tools into either C or assembly. None of these three are "safe" languages. A while ago I was told that moving to a newer version of Perl was being held up by needing to deal with mod_perl. That's obviously been dealt with. I like Perl's way of flowing and doing things. I tried learning some assembly on my own, really to just get a better idea of what was going on with different C commands and variables. But the developers kept adding little changes, for good reasons, that made compiling with NASM changing. Plus i386 vs. amd vs. hardware I don't have a bit too much to deal with. Personally, I would like to learn to properly program in C for OpenBSD. Yet with so many changes, it's a bit of a constantly moving target. (Hurrah!) But as my attempts previously didn't work out too well, I see a problem for me and others in my position. I don't want to hold up any active developers from doing their work. I really don't think I can get good enough without some hand holding to get to a good enough understanding of OpenBSD's usage of C, since there are so many points that one needs to be able to tie together to "get it". I do not have enough money to go back to school to learn C in a class. C itself seems pretty simple to use, but hard to put into useful contributions. Perl has a nice collection of modules that do really useful stuff on CPAN. I would guess that OpenBSD has basically the same thing going on in C in the src tree. Every time I've tried to follow the chain along I just find myself lost and overwhelmed by too much to follow down the rabbit hole. Is there anyone(s) who, preferably both not busy with active development who would genuinely be both willing and capable of helping follow down the rabbit hole? I would not be capable of doing that myself if the position were reversed. I just don't have the patience and personality to keep up with some idiot like me. I realize that if a hundred people jump up and ask for the same thing, maybe two will really mean it and perhaps one will actually follow through. If someone(s) would like to help, please let me know on or off list. But let's not waste each others time. I don't want to exchange 20 emails and then get ignored. Or vice versa. As far as the topic being discussed, I think that nothing needs to be changed. Lowest level to high level we have is just fine. Assembly -> C -> Perl I don't see any need to add to base. It's a good, strong foundation. Chris Bennett
