From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH, FREEMAIL_FROM,HELO_NO_DOMAIN,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT,RDNS_NONE,SPOOFED_FREEMAIL_NO_RDNS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,beb0b7471c6440e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-22 05:35:16 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!213.56.195.71!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Gautier Write-only-address" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: 'Cyclone', a safer C--reinventing the wheel Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 13:33:43 +0000 Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 1006436087 70286 137.194.161.2 (22 Nov 2001 13:34:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 13:34:47 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Return-Path: X-Originating-IP: [194.40.39.50] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Nov 2001 13:33:44.0327 (UTC) FILETIME=[4E6F9170:01C1735A] Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16858 Date: 2001-11-22T13:33:43+00:00 >From: "chris.danx" >"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