On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:15:20 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> Would you trust a "safe" language that had some critical libraries that
> were written in say, C?

The less C code you write, the easier it is to keep it under control.

On 3/4/2024 1:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:15:20 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
>> Would you trust a "safe" language that had some critical libraries that
>> were written in say, C?
>
> The less C code you write, the easier it is to keep it under control.

Excellent comment in a C group. Well, you should move to another group?

On 3/4/2024 1:28 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 3/4/2024 1:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:15:20 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>>> Would you trust a "safe" language that had some critical libraries that
>>> were written in say, C?
>>
>> The less C code you write, the easier it is to keep it under control.
>
> Excellent comment in a C group. Well, you should move to another group?

http://fractallife247.com/test/hmac_cipher/ver_0_0_0_1?ct_hmac_cipher=7e7e1c663477d02a3adbf99372cfa1e0e719dcdabd20b50c27000dba3eb5dc342e3e0403607bb40f00b999b6bc24559ca0858b445c097a3848b457b1028ab0d78aa57934cd00b99dd080f80bf7791a11d5df6435fb0e

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 21:07:27 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 11:44:06 +0000, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>
> > And of course Google can solve a problem by inventing a new
> > language and putting up all the infrastructure that that would need
> > around it.
>
> Google has invented quite a lot of languages: Dart and Go come to
> mind, and also this “Carbon” effort.
>
> I suppose nowadays a language can find a niche outside the
> mainstream, and still be viable. Proprietary products need
> mass-market success to stay afloat, but with open-source ones, what’s
> important is the contributor base, not the user base.

Go *is* mainstream, more so than Rust.
Dart is not mainstream and is not even niche.
For Carbon it's too early to call, but so far prospects look bleak.

On 04.03.2024 18:24, David Brown wrote:
> On 04/03/2024 17:05, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 03.03.2024 21:23, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> [...] Shortcuts are taken because
>>> the sales people need the code by tomorrow morning, and there are only
>>> so many hours in the night to get it working.
>>
>> An indication of bad project management (or none at all) to control
>> development according to a realistic plan.
>
> Now you are beginning to understand!

Huh? - I posted about various factors (beyond the programmers'
proficiency and tools) in an earlier reply to you; it was including
the management factor that you missed to note and that you adopted
as factor just in a later post. - So there's neither need nor reason
for such an arrogant, wrong, and disrespectful statement.

Janis

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 00:59:48 +0200, Michael S wrote:

> Go *is* mainstream, more so than Rust.

Google looked at what language to use for its proprietary “Fuchsia” OS,
and decided Rust was a better choice than Go.

Discord did some benchmarking of its back-end servers, which had been
using Go, and decided that switching to Rust offered better performance.

On 04.03.2024 22:15, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 3/3/2024 9:43 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 16:06:24 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>>> I remember a while back when some people would try to tell me that [Ada]
>>> solves all issues...
>>
>> It did make a difference. Did you know the life-support system on the
>> International Space Station was written in Ada? Not something you
>> would trust C++ code to, let’s face it.
>
> Would you trust a "safe" language that had some critical libraries that
> were written in say, C?

You named them as "critical libraries", which (as a project manager)
I'd handle as such; be sure about their quality, about certificates,
write own test cases if necessary, or demand source code for reviews
for own verification.

As already said, there's more factors than the language. An external
library is also an externality to consider, and to not consider it
(per se) as okay.

Janis

On 04/03/2024 21:28, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 3/4/2024 1:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:15:20 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>>> Would you trust a "safe" language that had some critical libraries that
>>> were written in say, C?
>>
>> The less C code you write, the easier it is to keep it under control.
>
> Excellent comment in a C group. Well, you should move to another group?

There's an underlying reality there. The less code you have, the less
that can go wrong. So don;t just knock out code, but think a bit about
what you do and do not really need.
--
Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books:
https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm

On 3/4/2024 6:46 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On 04/03/2024 21:28, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 3/4/2024 1:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:15:20 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Would you trust a "safe" language that had some critical libraries that
>>>> were written in say, C?
>>>
>>> The less C code you write, the easier it is to keep it under control.
>>
>> Excellent comment in a C group. Well, you should move to another group?
>
> There's an underlying reality there. The less code you have, the less
> that can go wrong.

Well, hard to disagree with that. :^D

> So don;t just knock out code, but think a bit about
> what you do and do not really need.

Indeed.

[...]

On 3/4/2024 6:32 PM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 04.03.2024 22:15, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 3/3/2024 9:43 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 16:06:24 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I remember a while back when some people would try to tell me that [Ada]
>>>> solves all issues...
>>>
>>> It did make a difference. Did you know the life-support system on the
>>> International Space Station was written in Ada? Not something you
>>> would trust C++ code to, let’s face it.
>>
>> Would you trust a "safe" language that had some critical libraries that
>> were written in say, C?
>
> You named them as "critical libraries", which (as a project manager)
> I'd handle as such; be sure about their quality, about certificates,
> write own test cases if necessary, or demand source code for reviews
> for own verification.
>
> As already said, there's more factors than the language. An external
> library is also an externality to consider, and to not consider it
> (per se) as okay.

Think of a critical library as an essential part of a runtime for a
language, perhaps? Say you create a new language that depends on certain
things that are coded in C and/or ASM. Fair enough?

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 02:46:33 +0000, Malcolm McLean wrote:

> The less code you have, the less that can go wrong.

This can also mean using the build system to automatically generate some
repetitive things, to avoid having to write them manually.

On 3/4/2024 8:43 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 02:46:33 +0000, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>
>> The less code you have, the less that can go wrong.
>
> This can also mean using the build system to automatically generate some
> repetitive things, to avoid having to write them manually.

Does the build system depend on anything coded in C?

On 3/3/2024 4:14 PM, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
> Frankly, i think we should all be programming in macros over assembly
> anyway.

Been there, done that. No more.

Lynn

On 3/3/2024 11:43 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 16:06:24 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
>> I remember a while back when some people would try to tell me that [Ada]
>> solves all issues...
>
> It did make a difference. Did you know the life-support system on the
> International Space Station was written in Ada? Not something you
> would trust C++ code to, let’s face it.
>
> And here
> <https://devclass.com/2022/11/08/spark-as-good-as-rust-for-safer-coding-adacore-cites-nvidia-case-study/>
> is a project to make it even safer.

Most of the Ada code was written in C or C++ and converted to Ada for
delivery.

Lynn

On 3/3/2024 9:31 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>> "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks"
>>
>> https://www.pcmag.com/news/white-house-to-developers-using-c-plus-plus-invites-cybersecurity-risks
>>
>> "The Biden administration backs a switch to more memory-safe programming
>> languages. The tech industry sees their point, but it won't be easy."
>>
>> No. The feddies want to regulate software development very much.
>
> You've been reading far to much apocalyptic fiction and seeing the
> world through trump-colored glasses. Neither reflect reality.

Nope, I actually have had a Professional Engineer's License in Texas for
34 years now and can tell you all about what it takes to get one and
what it takes to keep one.

This bunch of crazies in the White House wants to do the same thing to
software development.

Lynn

On 3/4/2024 5:54 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 00:59:48 +0200, Michael S wrote:
>
>> Go *is* mainstream, more so than Rust.
>
> Google looked at what language to use for its proprietary “Fuchsia” OS,
> and decided Rust was a better choice than Go.
>
> Discord did some benchmarking of its back-end servers, which had been
> using Go, and decided that switching to Rust offered better performance.

Why do you mention performance? I thought is was all about safety...

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 22:18:47 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On 3/4/2024 5:54 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 00:59:48 +0200, Michael S wrote:
>>
>>> Go *is* mainstream, more so than Rust.
>>
>> Google looked at what language to use for its proprietary “Fuchsia” OS,
>> and decided Rust was a better choice than Go.
>>
>> Discord did some benchmarking of its back-end servers, which had been
>> using Go, and decided that switching to Rust offered better
>> performance.
>
> Why do you mention performance? I thought is was all about safety...

Safety’s a given. Plus you get performance as well.

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 00:09:35 -0600, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> ... I actually have had a Professional Engineer's License in Texas for
> 34 years now and can tell you all about what it takes to get one and
> what it takes to keep one.

Does that include any qualification in safety-critical or security-
critical systems?

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 21:23:49 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On 3/4/2024 8:43 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 02:46:33 +0000, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>
>>> The less code you have, the less that can go wrong.
>>
>> This can also mean using the build system to automatically generate
>> some repetitive things, to avoid having to write them manually.
>
> Does the build system depend on anything coded in C?

These days, it might be Rust.

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 00:03:54 -0600, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> On 3/3/2024 11:43 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> Did you know the life-support system on the
>> International Space Station was written in Ada? Not something you would
>> trust C++ code to, let’s face it.
>
> Most of the Ada code was written in C or C++ and converted to Ada for
> delivery.

Was it debugged again? Or was it assumed that the translation was bug-
free?

On 3/4/2024 11:06 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 22:18:47 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
>> On 3/4/2024 5:54 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 00:59:48 +0200, Michael S wrote:
>>>
>>>> Go *is* mainstream, more so than Rust.
>>>
>>> Google looked at what language to use for its proprietary “Fuchsia” OS,
>>> and decided Rust was a better choice than Go.
>>>
>>> Discord did some benchmarking of its back-end servers, which had been
>>> using Go, and decided that switching to Rust offered better
>>> performance.
>>
>> Why do you mention performance? I thought is was all about safety...
>
> Safety’s a given. Plus you get performance as well.

For sure? There is no way a programmer can f it up, so to speak?

On 04/03/2024 21:36, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 3/4/2024 12:44 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 03/03/2024 23:01, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 3/3/2024 12:23 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 03/03/2024 19:18, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>
>>>>> Embedded systems often need custom memory management, not something
>>>>> that
>>>>> the language imposes. C has malloc, yet even that gets disused in
>>>>> favor
>>>>> of something else.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For safe embedded systems, you don't want memory management at all.
>>>> Avoiding dynamic memory is an important aspect of safety-critical
>>>> embedded development.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You still have to think about memory management even if you avoid any
>>> dynamic memory? How are you going to mange this memory wrt your
>>> various data structures needs....
>>
>> To be clear here - sometimes you can't avoid all use of dynamic memory
>> and therefore memory management.  And as Kaz says, you will often use
>> custom solutions such as resource pools rather than generic
>> malloc/free.   Flexible network communication (such as Ethernet or
>> other IP networking) is hard to do without dynamic memory.
> [...]
>
> Think of using a big chunk of memory, never needed to be freed and is
> just there per process. Now, you carve it up and store it in a cache
> that has functions push and pop. So, you still have to manage memory
> even when you are using no dynamic memory at all... Fair enough, in a
> sense? The push and the pop are your malloc and free in a strange sense...
>

I believe I mentioned that. You do not, in general, "push and pop" -
you malloc and never free. Excluding debugging code and other parts
useful in testing and developing, you have something like :

enum { heap_size = 16384; }
alignas(max_align_t) static uint8_t heap[heap_size];
uint8_t * next_free = heap;

void free(void * ptr) {
(void) ptr;
}

void * malloc(size_t size) {
const size_t align = alignof(max_align_t);
const real_size = size ? (size + (align - 1)) & ~(align - 1)
: align;
void * p = next_free;
next_free += real_size;
return p;
}

Allowing for pops requires storing the size of the allocations (unless
you change the API from that of malloc/free), and is only rarely useful.
Generally if you want memory that temporary, you use a VLA or alloca
to put it on the stack.

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 01:54:46 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 00:59:48 +0200, Michael S wrote:
>
> > Go *is* mainstream, more so than Rust.
>
> Google looked at what language to use for its proprietary “Fuchsia”
> OS, and decided Rust was a better choice than Go.
>

Go is (1) garbage-collected, (2) mostly statically linked.
(1) means it is not suitable for kernel
(2) means it is suitable for big user-mode utilities, but probably
impractical for smaller utilities, because you don't want your tiny
utility to occupy 2-3 MB on permanent storage.
But both (1) and (2) are advantages for typical application programming,
esp. for back-end processing.

> Discord did some benchmarking of its back-end servers, which had been
> using Go, and decided that switching to Rust offered better
> performance.

I have no idea who is Discord.
However I fully expect that for micro- or mini-benchmarks they are
correct.
I also expect that
- even for micro- or mini-benchmark the difference in speed is less
than factor of 3
- for big and complex real-world back-end processing, writing working
solution in go will take 5 time less man hours than writing it in
Rust
- for more complex processing just making it work in Rust, regardless of
execution speed, will require uncommon level of programming skills
- even if Rust solution works initially, it would be more costly (than
go solution) to maintain and especially to adapt to changing
requirements.

On 05/03/2024 02:46, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 04.03.2024 18:24, David Brown wrote:
>> On 04/03/2024 17:05, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>> On 03.03.2024 21:23, David Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...] Shortcuts are taken because
>>>> the sales people need the code by tomorrow morning, and there are only
>>>> so many hours in the night to get it working.
>>>
>>> An indication of bad project management (or none at all) to control
>>> development according to a realistic plan.
>>
>> Now you are beginning to understand!
>
> Huh? - I posted about various factors (beyond the programmers'
> proficiency and tools) in an earlier reply to you; it was including
> the management factor that you missed to note and that you adopted
> as factor just in a later post. - So there's neither need nor reason
> for such an arrogant, wrong, and disrespectful statement.
>

It was not intended that way at all - I'm sorry if that is how it came
across.

On 05/03/2024 08:08, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 00:03:54 -0600, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> On 3/3/2024 11:43 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> Did you know the life-support system on the
>>> International Space Station was written in Ada? Not something you would
>>> trust C++ code to, let’s face it.
>>
>> Most of the Ada code was written in C or C++ and converted to Ada for
>> delivery.
>
> Was it debugged again? Or was it assumed that the translation was bug-
> free?

With Ada, if you can get it to compile, it's ready to ship :-)