On 10/28/06, David Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Crispin Cowan wrote:
For me, the enemy in the room is C++. It gives you the safety of C with the
performance of SmallTalk. There is no excuse at all to be writing anything in
C++ yet vastly too many applications are written in C++ anyway.
Crispin,
It is most certainly true that C++ can be appropriate in those cases. C++
programs can perform just as well as C programs, while also being much better
structured. Of course, it will be necessary to avoid performing frequent
allocation and deallocation of heap memory in the C++ program -
David Crocker wrote:
Unfortunately, there are at least two situations in which C++ is a more
suitable
alternative to Java and C#:
- Where performance is critical. Run time of C# code (using the faster .NET
2.0
runtime) can be as much as double the run time of a C++ version of the same
Crispin Cowan wrote:
For me, the enemy in the room is C++. It gives you the safety of C with the
performance of SmallTalk. There is no excuse at all to be writing anything in
C++ yet vastly too many applications are written in C++ anyway. Instead of
trying to coax developers to switch from C++
Larry Kilgallen wrote:
Is there participation on this list from the (hopefully larger number of)
CMU instructors who are teaching people to use safer languages in the first
place ?
May anybody not from CMU enter the discussion about safer languages? ;-)
I'm in favor of SML, as it has a
At 12:11 PM -0400 10/13/06, James Walden wrote:
you really have to use C because it's the only thing that will do,
That seems extremely improbable.
--
Larry Kilgallen
___
Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L)
SC-L@securecoding.org
List information,
On 10/12/06, Craig E. Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think saying use safer languages is a good way to say it.It would help conditions significantly if greater care were taken tomatch the choice of programming language to the problem to be solved
or application to be created. If a language
At 9:02 PM +1000 10/13/06, mikeiscool wrote:
On 10/13/06, Craig E. Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:03 AM -0400 10/12/06, ljknews wrote:
At 9:20 AM -0400 10/12/06, Robert C. Seacord wrote:
I'm also teaching a course at CMU in the spring on Secure Coding in C
and C++.
Is there
At 10:03 AM -0400 10/12/06, ljknews wrote:
At 9:20 AM -0400 10/12/06, Robert C. Seacord wrote:
I'm also teaching a course at CMU in the spring on Secure Coding in C
and C++.
Is there participation on this list from the (hopefully larger number of)
CMU instructors who are teaching people to
On 10/13/06, Craig E. Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:03 AM -0400 10/12/06, ljknews wrote:
At 9:20 AM -0400 10/12/06, Robert C. Seacord wrote:
I'm also teaching a course at CMU in the spring on Secure Coding in C
and C++.
Is there participation on this list from the (hopefully
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Gary McGraw wrote:
We're working on it! The problem is not simply a book.
Great! What are you guys doing? What more can be done? There are quite a
few of us willing to help, and I figure, starting with the books future
programmers learn from is not a bad idea.
This
We're working on it! The problem is not simply a book.
gem
-Original Message-
From: Gadi Evron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed Oct 11 20:58:12 2006
To: Kenneth Van Wyk
Cc: Secure Coding
Subject:[SC-L] re-writing college books [was: Re: A banner year for
On 10/12/06, Gadi Evron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, how can we edit current basic programming college books to present
secure code, a couple of words of the correct way of doing things, and a
whole new chapter on secure coding (which may be redudndent?)
How do we start?
Some Whiley book
Gadi,
I sort of agree with mic that the problem is poor programming. My last
manager liked to pick up C text books at random and point out all the
vulnerabilities in the code examples that are being used to teach the
next generation of programmers (how to write vulnerabilities).
This
14 matches
Mail list logo
