Listing the most dangerous parts of C

[Juuso Hukkanen]

I am looking for a wish list of things which should be removed from
the C (C99) - due to feature's bad security track record <OT>or
Multithreading unsafety. I need this list for a project intending to
build another (easiest & most powerful) programming language, which
has a two page definition document stating: "... includes C
programming language (C99), except its famous
"avoid-using-this-functions". </OT>

If you would not want to remove a whole function but only the use of
it with certain arguments / parameters, what would those combinations
be like? (Like scanf with %s or %[ arguments )

Probably there are official not to use recommendation lists.
( million times better than this)
http://tele3d.com/wiki/index.php/Par...ncluded_in_t3d

Please, do not circumvent the question by saying all functions except
gets() are safe if used properly. That would be like teaching that
"the ideology of Soviet Union was right, it was the Soviet peoples
fault that the system didn't work.

Juuso Hukkanen
(to reply by e-mail set addresses month and year to correct)
www.tele3d.com

[CBFalconer]

Keith Thompson wrote:

"Rod Pemberton" <do*********@bi tfoad.cmm> writes:

.... snip ...

(Wow. You usually have a slightly but not much higher
comprehension. Was that a low IQ day for you? )

And I am sick and tired of your stupid personal insults.

--

+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT F :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
=============== =============== =============== =============== ==

fix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2.
to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences
that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME
fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". - Hutchison

[Keith Thompson]

CBFalconer <cb********@yah oo.com> writes:

Keith Thompson wrote:

"Rod Pemberton" <do*********@bi tfoad.cmm> writes:
... snip ...

(Wow. You usually have a slightly but not much higher
comprehension. Was that a low IQ day for you? )

And I am sick and tired of your stupid personal insults.

[...] | PLEASE DO NOT F :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:

Point taken.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Dave Thompson]

On Thu, 11 May 2006 05:54:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invali d.invalid> wrote:

Christopher Benson-Manica said:

Why not just eliminate pointers altogether? There's a language that
does that for you, it's called Java.

Ha, ha, ha.

Oh, yeah - ha.

(For those who don't know - in Java, *everything* is a pointer.)

Everything except scalar primitive types. (Unless boxed.)

- David.Thompson1 at worldnet.att.ne t