just what we need
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Feb 20, 2007 8:26 PM EDT |
The worst "programming" "language" and biggest malware vector in the solar system on Linux. Thanks Mono folkz! |
| techiem2 Feb 20, 2007 8:33 PM EDT |
ROFL. I took one term of VB in college. The whole time I was wishing I could go back to my C++ classes. I don't much like to code, but VB just made me cry. |
| dinotrac Feb 20, 2007 9:35 PM EDT |
tc - WRONG WRONG WRONG! VB may be crap, but there is a lot of it out there and getting it to run on Linux may encourage a few more places to turn their backs on the dark side. Nobody's going to make you or me use it, but, for folks who do, it's a chance to learn what this "freedom" thing is all about. |
| tuxchick Feb 20, 2007 10:16 PM EDT |
well dino, the freedom to suck is a freedom! :D |
| dcparris Feb 20, 2007 10:44 PM EDT |
Hear! Hear! What TC said! As if Vista wasn't ample evidence of that. |
| Aladdin_Sane Feb 20, 2007 11:13 PM EDT |
>Nobody's going to make you or me use it You mean like nobody makes me use ActiveX controls and VB- and Frontpage- written software apps at work? Something about "paying the rent" conflicts with that opinion. (Apologies for taking the "argument from pragmaticism" side.) (Oh, man, now I'm shuddering at the visions I've inflicted myself with.) |
| tracyanne Feb 21, 2007 12:04 AM EDT |
quote:: The worst "programming" "language" and biggest malware vector in the solar system on Linux. Thanks Mono folkz! ::quote VB.NET is no different from C# in terms of security, in fact aprt from it's verbosity, it's not a bad language. You are confusing it with VB5 and VB6, and earlier versions, all of which were integrated with COM (Microsoft's Compnent Object Model) which in fact was the security issue, not the language. |
| dcparris Feb 21, 2007 1:14 AM EDT |
Well, this raises a question. Is it possible to have an "insecure" language, as opposed to an insecure component of a language? I bring it up since, when I was actively working on a DB project, arguments against Java included it having security issues. OTOH, a Java programmer wanting to take on the front-end, explained that Java was as secure as anything else, as long as you know how to program. What say ye, oh great and wise hackers? |
| herzeleid Feb 21, 2007 12:53 PM EDT |
I have no use for veebee myself, but as for mono in general, I did like the fact that I could write and run c# programs and asp web pages for college courses, microsoft-free, using linux and mono. |
| jdixon Feb 21, 2007 1:46 PM EDT |
> Well, this raises a question. Is it possible to have an "insecure" language, as opposed to an insecure component of a language? I'm sure one could design an insecure language, either deliberately or by incompetence, but offhand I can't think of any which qualify. I'm not a professional programmer, and haven't done anything other than the occasional shell script in years now, but all of the languages I ever looked at could be used securely. It's mostly a matter of know the strengths and weakness of the languages, and using them appropriately. |
| jezuch Feb 21, 2007 2:20 PM EDT |
Quoting:I'm sure one could design an insecure language, either deliberately or by incompetence, but offhand I can't think of any which qualify. Assembler. C (which is basically "high-level assembler"). That's simple :) And they're "insecure" because they can do anything the machine is capable of, like smashing the stack, fandango on core, buffer overflows, out-of-bounds array accesses etc. If you look at the security advisories, you'll see that most of them are related to lack of memory protection in C/C++. Quoting:but all of the languages I ever looked at could be used securely. It's mostly a matter of know the strengths and weakness of the languages, and using them appropriately. Right. But with some languages it's much easier to shoot yourself in the foot :) |
| jdixon Feb 21, 2007 3:57 PM EDT |
> Assembler. C...And they're "insecure" because they can do anything the machine is capable of, like smashing the stack, fandango on core, buffer overflows, out-of-bounds array accesses etc. I thought someone might say that. :) Yes, but that is not insecure by nature. That is insecure due to misuse. With great power comes great responsibility. :) > But with some languages it's much easier to shoot yourself in the foot :) I think that sums it up perfectly, and assembly and C definitely fall into that category. |
| swbrown Feb 21, 2007 4:14 PM EDT |
> WRONG WRONG WRONG!
>
> VB may be crap, but there is a lot of it out there and getting it to run on Linux may encourage a few more places to turn their backs on the dark side. That's kinda like Howard Dean's quote, "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks". There are some things you're better off refusing to support. |
| helios Feb 21, 2007 4:46 PM EDT |
Aladdin_Sane What a GREAT Screen Name. In tribute to that classic work, a...uh, ...tribute to that classic work. enjoy http://70.116.29.212:8001/crackedactor.mp3 |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!