[2931] in bugtraq
Re: at the risk of another flamefest..
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Neuman)
Tue Jul 16 02:20:34 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 23:33:24 -0500
Reply-To: Bugtraq List <BUGTRAQ@NETSPACE.ORG>
From: Mike Neuman <mcn@EnGarde.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list BUGTRAQ <BUGTRAQ@NETSPACE.ORG>
Eugene Bradley <ebradley@andromeda.rutgers.edu> writes:
>on Jul 16, Peter Jeremy <jeremyp@gsms01.alcatel.com.au> writes:
>
># I disagree. Whilst perl at the script level hides array-bounds problems
># from the user, it is not a panacea. Firstly, the interpreter itself is
># written in C - thus it is possible that the interpreter itself may suffer
># from an array-bounds problem.
>
>If this is is the case, couldn't Larry Wall et al. recompile
>perl 5 using the above gcc patches? Granted the newly-patched perl
>interpreter would be a bit slower to compile code, but personally
>I'd rather take the slowness than to have tons of array bounds problems
>in my code.
To fan the flames a bit, I find it amazing that people are complaining
that C is at fault for their lousy programming...
In any case, to add yet another level of indirection to the above argument,
Mr. Bradley is forgetting that Unix itself is written in C. As a result, perl
may have no bound problems, and so will the resulting compiled perl code, but
the operating system itself could still have problems (a la syslog() ).
-Mike
mcn@EnGarde.com
