John Thingstad wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 20:11:22 +0200, Anton van Straaten > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... >>> \sarcasm One step further, and somebody starts calling C a "latently >>> memory-safe language", because a real programmer "knows" that his code >>> is in a safe subset... And where he is wrong, dynamic memory page >>> protection checks will guide him. >> >> >> That's a pretty apt comparison, and it probably explains how it is >> that the software we all use, which relies so heavily on C, works as >> well as it does. >> >> But the comparison critiques the practice of operating without static >> guarantees, it's not a critique of the terminology. >> >> Anton > > > Actually I have never developed a C/C++ program > without a bounds checker the last 15 years. > It checks all memory references and on program shutdown > checks for memory leaks. What is it about you guys that make you blind > to these fact's.
You misunderstand -- for the purposes of the above comparison, a bounds checker serves essentially the same purpose as "dynamic memory page protection checks". The point is that it happens dynamically, i.e. at runtime, and that there's a lack of static guarantees about memory safety in C or C++. That's why, as I said, the comparison to latent vs. static typing is an apt one. Anton -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
