4 Dec
2014
4 Dec
'14
2:58 p.m.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Mouse <mouse at rodents-montreal.org> wrote:
Or, most commonly in my opinion, the long-term costs of using a crappy
programming language are simply not considered.
> If you use
a language in which buffer overruns can't occur, and will
> either trigger exception handling or abort the program, [...]
> So if simply by programming in a different
language you can
> substantially reduce the severity of an entire class of bugs, why
> wouldn't you do it?
That's a question with multiple passably obvious answers, most of which
amount to "use of that language comes with other, unacceptable, costs".
Perhaps those costs are performance costs (such languages are usually
much heavier-weight); perhaps they're programmer time costs (learning a
new language or working around its deficiencies); perhaps they're
system redesign costs (maybe the target system has no implementation of
the language in question); perhaps they're licensing costs (for the
implementation or perhaps even the language); perhaps lots of things.