Re: 'Cyclone', a safer C--reinventing the wheel

["Gautier Write-only-address" <gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com>]

>From: "chris.danx" <chris.danx@ntlworld.com>

>"The idea is to take good security ideas from higher level languages
>and implement them at a lower level"

>That suggests they actually know about other languages, and they are
>trying to bring those ideas to C.  The Cyclone developers don't seem to be 
>claiming that their ideas are new, or have never been a good
>thing; rather they are suggesting the opposite, C lacks some
>constructs which other languages have (which are good things) and
>they're trying to get those ideas across to C programmers.

Exactly, they don't claim to do better, and the aim is valuable,
e.g. to debug legacy C code: there will be more and more code where
the programmer(s) is/are no more living and where documentation
is lost.

More questionable is the lack of distance from the New Scientist
journalist's side, who doesn't suggest the existence of alternatives
for that problem - e.g. in some cases, it would be better to
reprogram in more modern languages than sticking to C. And...
will a "stronger C" be accepted by programmers if it has lost
its "quick & dirty" features ? Where is the tradeoff between
compatibility and security in that Cyclone ? That would be
interesting information.

____________________________________________________________
Gautier  --  http://www.mysunrise.ch/users/gdm/index.htm#Ada

NB: Do not answer to sender address, visit the Web site!
    Ne r�pondez pas � l'exp�diteur, visitez le site ouaibe!


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp