Every major exploit over the past few years has been because

>>55898753
Best trash to ever grace a computer.

>>55898954
That would be Rust

>>55898753
When we abandon “faster, faster, faster” tendency.

>>55898988
No thank you. I don't require training wheels.

>>55899019
t. Heartbleed programmer

>>55899027
t. shitty programmer

>>55898753
There's nothing especially bad about C, it's merely the fact that low-level languages are needed at some point to develop any kind of software, and low-level languages can easily have security problems if used improperly. Really the problem is using C for application development when a higher level language would be more suitable. Pretty much everything in a high level language is built on something low level like C anyway, however if the underlying code is programmed well, you won't have security issues. High level languages limit your power so that you don't have to worry about security, but there's still a need for good low-level programmers to facilitate all that in the first place.

>>55899019
>i'm too dumb to learn rust ownership

>>55899906
Exactly. You can't just skip the hardware level.

>>55898753
Programmers need to git gud.

It's not the language's fault.

C assumes that the programmer is always right and knows exactly what they're doing.

Not every person is responsible enough to handle the ultimate power of C.

>>55901029
If C assumes the programmer is always right, and as a human you know it's impossible to always be right, wouldn't you then assume that you will eventually run into a problem?

>>55901106
You can prove you are right if you dont program like a retard

>>55901106
Yes, but in a sense that's a problem with any programming language. You could always type a plus where you meant a minus. That's why you're supposed to test software before releasing it. C just requires paying more attention to memory allocation and pointers.

File: gaius.jpg (18KB, 400x266px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x266px

>>55899019
>borrow checking
>training wheels
By that logic, RAII is training wheels.

And if you think so, please do us all a favor and jump of a cliff.

>>55898753
Probably never. It's the go to language for operating systems, embedded systems, and general low level goodness. That doesn't mean it should be used for everything, however.

>>55901106

> with other languages however, you never run into problems

>>55898753
hi zed shaw

We can't dump C, nothing comes close to be better for microcontrollers.

>>55901991
>RAII is training wheels.

not him but RAII has some serious and underappreciated drawbacks.

implicit cleanup mandates non-throwing destructors, and not every system design is well suited to sweeping cleanup-time errors under the rug.

not that lazy-ass GC systems solve this problem exactly either, but synchronous silent tear-down is sometimes worse than careful manual destruction of state.

>>55904558
Funnily enough, this is actually where Rust shines, it's one of the few languages where unwinding combined with error handling is done properly.

Though RAII is by no means suited to every problem, you're quite right.

>every major exploit over the past few years has been because we teach shit languages to people and when they have to use C they don't know shit about secure programming
Fixed, you dumbshit.