On 9 Jan 2002 at 7:58, Robert Wittig wrote:
>Sam,
>
>> Bad HTML can lock up your computer and you will have to reboot.
>> I could refer you to several websites that will consistently
>> cause Arachne to crash. I know that there used to be some
>> websites out there that will always cause MSIE or NetScape
>> to crash. About three years ago I used to know about a web
>page
>> that had links saying something like "Click here to crash MSIE"
>> and "Click here to crash Netscape" and "Click here to crash
>> Arachne". According to what was being said about the site
>> on a mailing list I subscribed to at the time, all of the links
>> were reported to work exactly as advertised!
>>
>> Bad HTML usually contains inserted so-called Java Scripts or
>Java
>> Applets which run like executables to cause your computer to
>> crash. Of course not all so-called Java Scripts and Applets
>are
>> bad.
>
>Well, I will restrain myself from saying I am 100% sure I am
>right, but in my experience, I have never seen HTML crash a
>browser, and I would be very interested in seeing an example that
>would do such a thing.
I have found that very large and/or complex tables can make a browser
crash. If you're using an OS with little protection against
applications faults, then it can make the system crash, too.
<SNIP>
>The compiler *is* the 'culprit', in the sense that it is
>deliberately designed to allow the programmer to do all sorts of
>things that might not be sound programming, if the programmer is
>careless enough to do them. From what history I have read, this
>was done with deliberation, by the compiler designers, who
>thought that it was better to have a compiler that would allow
>for maximum creativity (such restrictive compiler rules might
>also wind up forbidding the programmer from performing some other
>programming feat, that no-one has even thought of yet, but which
>might revolutionise the entire language), than a 'safe' compiler,
>that would protect a stupid programmer from him or her self. I
>personally agree with this idea.
>
>On the other hand, I think that your analogy with the gun fails
>utterly. If you shoot yourself in the foot with a gun that is
>found to be defective in design or manufacture, in a manner that
>causes the gun to fire in a case where a non-defective gun would
>not have been able to fire (for instance, if you had the safety
>set, but it was defective), I think that the maker would bear
>some responsibility for your injury.
Unfortunately, with the C language, to use the "gun" analogy, it's all
too easy to shoot one's self in the foot with a gun that's in perfect
working order. Of course, the "C compiler" gun was deliberately
designed without a safety, in order to make firing it just that extra
second quicker, and uses a very large bullet, so that it does extra
damage. Trade-offs in language and compiler design are the things
that college professors get lots of books out of.
If you want a "safe" language, best look at Pascal or LISP or Logo. :-)
<SNIP>
>The same thing goes for a lot of the programs I write, in C/C++.
>They are continually pushing the edge of my knowledge, and come
>complete with the kinds of bugs one would expect to find, in the
>work of a programmer of my skill level. My studies in Lin/Unix
>administration tasks are doing well, too... I have successfully
>rendered my operating system totally unbootable w/o a rescue
>disk, writing global environmental variables on several
>occasions! Now I have also finally succeeded in getting Borland
>TASM 5.0 up and running, and have written my first couple
>programs in Assembly Language as well, so I am looking forward to
>crashing my boxes (DOS, Windows98 and 3.1, and Linux) in ever
>new, and more creative ways, in the New Year.<g>
That's exactly what new compilers and assemblers are for - for finding
new an interesting ways to make your box bomb out! :-)
Anthony J. Albert
===========================================================
Anthony J. Albert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Systems and Software Support Specialist Postmaster
Computer Services - University of Maine, Presque Isle
"To know is one thing; merely to believe one knows is another.
To know is science, but merely to believe one knows is ignorance."
- Hippocrates, ~400 B.C.
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
