Thread: Your most used compiler

Eh, you're missing the point.
Microsoft is concerned about security. Vista was all about security. They promote IE8 because of security, etc.
So it wouldn't strike me as strange that they added "safe" functions.
And btw, they're more like debugging tools than real functions, since they just throw an assertion. And I don't think they're difficult to understand. If you fail to understand them, then you shouldn't call yourself a C programmer.

I'm not impressed.
And if you know of a better way to detect such stuff in C, then name it.

Originally Posted by Elysia

And if you know of a better way to detect such stuff in C, then name it.

I do not have today the same annoyed expression I would have a couple of years ago when discussing the so-called "safe functions". However I still think these are at large useless since buffer overflow is first a bug before it ever becomes a security issue. None of these so-called "safe functions" offered by Microsoft or OpenBSD or even the C Standards Committee really address the issue, since they can only operate with the programmer's consent.

Personally, I favor canary solutions like ssp. Especially ssp. Not StackGuard which is only marginally more useful than the so-called "safe functions" and which is what Microsoft uses with that /GS switch of them. In any case, these solutions plant the protection downstream at program compilation and execution. Exactly where it provides more safety. Not in the programmer's hand where usually all the damage comes from.

I'd probably complement that with a standard library wrapper like Libsafe and ignore altogether the so-called "safe functions" (with the exception of C standard functions). So, there's one upstream solution (libsafe) and one downstream solution (ssp).

Again, buffer overflow is first a bug before it ever becomes a security issue. If there is a need to actually solve the problem (solving = minimizing the impact) then this really has to be done by treating C and C++ programmers as they deserve; a bunch of incompetent fools that need their code to be nursed.

EDIT: Naturally I said last bit because I felt it was something I needed to say. It annoys me the way we like to wash our hands of the buffer overrun problem as if it was a flaw of the compiler, or operating system, or whatever. But in all truth the point is that there are other, better solutions. "Safe functions" address the problem by putting the solution back in the hands of those that create the problem in the first place. There's no guarantee of success since most people actually don't use these functions. Some don't even know they can use OpenBSD's much better strlcpy in their standard library, for instance. Sure keep them around, but a real solution has to include elimination and prevention techniques like the ones described above.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

...If there is a need to actually solve the problem (solving = minimizing the impact) then this really has to be done by treating C and C++ programmers as they deserve; a bunch of incompetents that need their code to be nursed.

Harsh! But I like it

GCC - it pretty much compiles everything. But I've been using clang more and more lately since it's got a whole host of things that I think make it a better compiler (for C anyway... right now,) and pretty full GCC compatibility as well.

Originally Posted by cpjust

No, you're thinking of a particular subset of text editors which do more then just edit text.

Not really: indentation is part of text editing, and syntax highlighting is a natural part of how text might be displayed. In fact, it sounds like you agree with me, since you call them text editors. If they do more than edit text, then they must have been integrated with some other tool, hence they are IDEs. That said, the lines between a powerful text editor and a lightweight IDE are blurred... but as mentioned I think the key to this differentiation is whether tool integration is required for a given feature (but distinguishing between a tool and a feature of a tool can be difficult, since IDEs themselves can be considered tools in their own right).

Originally Posted by cpjust

If you were using a real basic text editor like Notepad, there's no highlighting, auto-indenting or anything else.

Yes, but that has no bearing on whether those features are part of an IDE or can be part of a "mere" text editor.

Originally Posted by laserlight

Not really: indentation is part of text editing, and syntax highlighting is a natural part of how text might be displayed. In fact, it sounds like you agree with me, since you call them text editors. If they do more than edit text, then they must have been integrated with some other tool, hence they are IDEs. That said, the lines between a powerful text editor and a lightweight IDE are blurred... but as mentioned I think the key to this differentiation is whether tool integration is required for a given feature (but distinguishing between a tool and a feature of a tool can be difficult, since IDEs themselves can be considered tools in their own right).

I would call that a word processor rather than a plain old text editor.

Originally Posted by cpjust

I would call that a word processor rather than a plain old text editor.

You seem to just want to make up your own definitions of things. A word processor is a WYSIWYG tool for preparing human readable, printed text documents, using an intermediate file format.

A text editor is for editing raw text and is obviously a completely different, totally incompatible thing. Of course, word processors and text editors may have features in common, like auto-indenting or whatever.

There is no "gray area" here. You can call a text editor with syntax highlighting and auto-indentation a word processor, but it is not at all a word processor (which AFAIK usually do not have syntax highlighting anyway). You could call it a musical instrument too, but that is not what it is: a text editor.

Vim will source and type variables under the cursor with a keypress and perform auto-completion in some languages. Really, this is an extension of the syntax interpreting possibilities of an editor. Since it is not integrated with a compiler or build system, it is not an IDE, which is a text editor integrated with a build system. Or do you consider part of the IDE a "word processor"?

I am totally addicted to MSVC++ 2008!

Oh, and I am addicted to Win XP too!

Go M$!!

Code:

I am totally addicted to MSVC++ 2008!

Eh, I'm waiting for 2010... and praying. It's an ok IDE, but it would be really nice to get legitmate regular expressions, not the craptastic version I discovered. Per-project indentation settings would be fantastic. Bringing a copy of gvim to work as crossed my mind. It's really not that bad of an IDE - the GUI for debugger is really powerful and I would love something similar for gdb.

Code:

Oh, and I am addicted to Win XP too!

Yeah...

Originally Posted by Cactus_Hugger

the GUI for debugger is really powerful and I would love something similar for gdb.

Recently someone took over maintenance of DDD, which is the GUI gdb, and released a new version. It works fine for me, and probably is about as much fun as a graphical debugger could be, but it is slightly irritating to build (most distros do not have a package) because the interface uses motif and the current lesstif (motif clone) has a wee bug in it. I do have a fix for that, it's only a few lines, but again, you will then have to compile *both* lesstif and ddd from source.

Originally Posted by Elysia

everything in one solution is always preferred to several programs to do it. That is, if it works as it should.

Not by me it ain't. Especially if you have to play "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" monkey in order to believe that last part

So why not just one big program instead of an OS? It could be your web browser, your IDE, your word processor, your file browser, and your digital image tools all in one terrific integrated package! Imagine the panes and pull downs on that baby!

Nah. Sounds almost stupid now I think about it.

Originally Posted by MK27

So why not just one big program instead of an OS? It could be your web browser, your IDE, your word processor, your file browser, and your digital image tools all in one terrific integrated package! Imagine the panes and pull downs on that baby!

You won't get any brownie points by trying to argue with an exaggerated example that tries to ridicule Elysia's much simpler statement. She's talking about integrated development environments. And that's just it.

We all realized by now you don't give them a rat's arse. Fine. Others here don't give your vim a rat's arse either. And that's just as fine. If you prefer a few tenths of tools each with their own syntax and whatnot, because that somehow makes you feel empowered, that's really your prerogative. It's your porno.

My porno is the least amount of possible tools. And I'm just as happy as you are.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

You won't get any...

Eww, someone crawled out of the wrong corner this morning!

And I could never be half as silly as Elysia even if I tried

Besides which, I wasn't ridiculing anyone. She made a universal statement:

everything in one solution is always preferred to several programs to do it.

which I was indicating, via extrapolation, that this universal statement is false or absurd. You obviously must draw a line somewhere. Since the IDE has drawn it for you, that's fine, but you cannot then argue irrationally that this is because "one solution is always preferred" if another unifying level (integrate the IDE with the browser) makes it unacceptable to you. Everyone admires Goldilocks for knowing what she likes. However, Goldilocks would be an absurdist/comic figure if she pontificated logical fallacies based on the temperature of her soup -- "the soup is this temperature because that is the perfect temperature". That is not why the soup is that temperature.

And I could never be half as silly as Elysia even if I tried

You lose.