 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> It's fine for the details. But try to document (say) the BSD interface
> to TCP by documenting only the listen(), accept(), bind(), and connect()
> calls. Without understanding what an IP address is, or a socket, or how
> DNS works, etc you're still not going to win.
>
> Or take something like a big windowing system, or a 3D graphics system,
> or a physics library, and try to document *just* the routines without
> documenting the architecture of the system. You'll spend three days
> trying to find out where to start reading the documentation.
Ah yes... This is how I tried to learn OpenGL. (By reading function
descriptions, that is.) It's not very easy...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> As far as I can tell, 98% of all security issues are buffer overruns -
>> trivially fixable, yet nobody seems to think it's necessary.
>
> The three biggest are buffer overruns, SQL injection, and XSS injection.
Not for desktop applications, I'd suspect. (Injection attacks are
typically more applicable to websites.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Not for desktop applications, I'd suspect. (Injection attacks are
> typically more applicable to websites.)
Yes. This was from SANS, so they cover pretty much everything, from
operating systems to desktop apps to web apps.
Altho have you heard of the Slammer attack? :-) That's basically code injection.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Captain Jack wrote:
> I recall three different people (all academics, natch)
> making predictions of this sort. One said the "universal" language would be
> based on C, one cited Pascal, and the other one used the phrase "Super
> LISP", although he didn't really explain what would be super about it.
You know you're talking to an academic when he says that PASCAL will
become universally popular. I've never seen it used outside of the
context of learning to program.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> You know you're talking to an academic when he says that PASCAL will
> become universally popular. I've never seen it used outside of the
> context of learning to program.
It was quite popular for commercial code on microcomputers in the 80's. UCSD
Pascal as well as a few others were pretty common for programming Z-80
machines, for example.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> What comes after Object Oriented?
>
> I mean, we started with assembler, then libraries, then HLLs, then
> portable HLLs, then interpreters, then structured programming, then a
> whole bunch of stuff that nobody really picked up (workspaces, LISP,
> self-modifying code, sophisticated macros, functional programming, etc),
> then Object Oriented, then .... nothing.
>
> Why has programming language development been functionally stalled for
> 30 years?
>
More like we started with binary commands, moved on to assembler
mnemonics, then Pascal / C type command-oriented, then class based
object-oriented...
Since we're dealing with progressive levels of encapsulation here, the
next layer deals with more abstract object types. I believe Lisp and
Haskell are examples of this level. Following that, we would probably
see something which allows more abstract manipulation of systems.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Because I program for a living, and 99% of the time it's tedious, error
> prone, and suckful. And the hardware hasn't stopped improving. But I'm
> still using the same programming techniques I used on my 2MHz
> sparkstation with 4Meg of RAM.
There are serious attempts to improve programmer efficiency, but they
are often met with derision and scorn.
Case in point: I mentioned to one of my instructors that I switched from
C++ to C#, and his response was, "So you took a step backward, then?"
You get even stronger reactions from people about Visual Basic. This,
despite the fact that VB and C# are both designed to *increase*
programmer efficiency.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-10-2009 3:08, John VanSickle wrote:
> Captain Jack wrote:
>
>> I recall three different people (all academics, natch) making
>> predictions of this sort. One said the "universal" language would be
>> based on C, one cited Pascal, and the other one used the phrase "Super
>> LISP", although he didn't really explain what would be super about it.
>
>
> You know you're talking to an academic when he says that PASCAL will
> become universally popular. I've never seen it used outside of the
> context of learning to program.
I did
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New schrieb:
> Or take something like a big windowing system, or a 3D graphics system,
> or a physics library, and try to document *just* the routines without
> documenting the architecture of the system. You'll spend three days
> trying to find out where to start reading the documentation.
You mean, like the Windows API documentation? :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/03/09 07:30, andrel wrote:
>> You know you're talking to an academic when he says that PASCAL will
>> become universally popular. I've never seen it used outside of the
>> context of learning to program.
>
> I did
You talked to an academic?
--
How do frogs die? Ker-mit suicide.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
