Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-

Satan is the father of lies

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-08 23:17

These C liars constantly claim that the work of other people came from C and Bell Labs hackers. Who would do that other than Satan and his servants?

They are so deluded by Satan that they believe the idea of variables and ASCII text came from C.

Okay, what y'all youngins need to understand is what programming looked like before C, and what it looked like with C.

What if, rather than manually typing in memory addresses, you could store stuff in variables that the rest of the program can access BY ENGLISH NAME? Or, when you need to, store memory addresses in variables, which you could still access by name? What if you automated all this, so the program itself allocated, read, and wrote memory addresses to the variables, so no programmer would ever need to do it themselves?

THIS is the level we're working at, OP. For some newage twirp to say it's a "fundamentally flawed language and has many errors" is just mentally painful. By errors he means "It doesn't do this thing we have space to run now, it not doing something that other things do is a FLAW and an ERROR"
We went from "Manually type in the address of the thing you want, or maybe offset stuff from an address if you really want, either way you're keeping a spreadsheet full of hex codes on your desk if you like it or not" to "Lol here it all is, named and everything, no need to know the address, you can simply copy the address of a variable to another variable and use the second to access the first, if something out of scope wants direct access to the first, just give it the second and it can do what the fuck it wants, go wild with math if you like but don't be a twat and TRY to keep track of where everything is"
Do you even begin to understand how much of a DREAM this shit was to programmers? It's all these halfwit newbies that think the compiler should keep everything safe for them no matter what that look at C and go "Now, this language so utterly pure and without clutter, it's FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED and HAS MANY ERRORS because IT'S NOT FULL OF SHIT THAT DOES EVERYTHING FOR ME, IT DOESN'T GET IN THE WAY, IT DOESN'T STOP ME FROM DOING WHAT I WANT, IT EXPECTS ME TO KNOW WHAT I'M DOING, IT'S SO GARBAGE BECAUSE I'M TO FUCKING DUMB TO FOLLOW THE SIMPLEST RULEBOOK IN PROGRAMMING"

YES YOU HAVE TO KEEP A VAGUE IDEA OF HOW YOUR MEMORY WORKS, BUT C DOES SO BLOODY MUCH FOR YOU THAT ANYTHING MORE IT LITERALLY "BABBIE FIRST DRAG AND DROP HOCKEY GAME"
IT'S NOT EVEN MANAGING MEMORY, IT'S SITTING IN YOUR COMFY OFFICE TELLING THE PR GUY TO GET RID OF DEPARTMENTS YOU DON'T NEED ANYMORE, AND ADDRESSING EMPLOYEES BY THEIR BADGE NUMBER, NOT THEIR NAME, GENDER, WHAT OR WHO THEY ARE, JUST A SIMPLE NUMBER, AND PEOPLE STILL MANAGE TO SCREW IT ALL UP AND SAY "IT'S TOO HARD"

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-08 23:23

Not an argument.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-08 23:36

>>2
When someone tells a real gigantic lie, like saying that C changed programming from hex memory addresses into variables and English names, they had to have been possessed by Satan. How could anyone tell such a big lie like that without some kind of Satanic forces?

That Satan's computer theory really makes a lot of sense.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-08 23:43

>>3
When someone tells a real gigantic lie, like saying that C changed programming from hex memory addresses into variables and English names
I don't know anyone who says such a thing. They're either confused or lying. C wasn't the first language to to do those things, although it could be argued that it is one of the first popular language to do so. This still does not constitute an argument, though.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-08 23:44

>>3
Maybe they're just stupid, like you.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-09 0:31

I've asked myself the same to be honest. It doesn't seem to be a purposeful lie, but any sliver of actual research into the history of programming would show it to be complete nonsense. One has to wonder, do these people just randomly make something up that sounds good and delude themselves that this is what really happened?

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-09 7:14

Actual C-omputers didn't exist before Dennis Ritchie asked Bell Labs for funds to construct a Digital C-alculating Machine made from vacuum tubes and switches on which the first non-theoretical program was born(which was v1 Unix).

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-09 8:07

oh look, mental midget-kun is back. can't wait for the return of FrozenAnus, Mentifex and last but not least lel-kunt

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-09 12:49

U MENA FORTAN

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-10 18:53

>>6
I don't know what the motive could be, but I have one idea. Instead of wanting to make everything better for everyone, like programming languages were made to do, the C hackers want to drag everything down to their level. They want eternal suffering for mankind.

I dislike C because it's a bad language for programming. When I look at the point of view from the 80s and early 90s, pretty much everyone agreed with me. C just looked as backwards and inferior then as it does now, even worse because C was foreign to most computers and there was no delusion that C was good. Now, since time went on and many more programming languages appeared, C should have a worse reputation than it did then, but some terrible cataclysm occurred. All of these languages that were made from the 50s to the 80s are barely used anymore and have fallen from public view. So nearly everything left is based on C.

How did this happen? It happened because of the Satanic mindset of the C hackers. They use lies so people feel bad for not using and respecting C. They say ``C was good enough for the man who invented the Unix system hierarchical file system file programming language computer, but it's not good enough for you? You must be stupid because you can't use C.'' They tell a sad story about how their grandfather used to manually punch in hex addresses on cards before C, and ``C DOES SO BLOODY MUCH FOR YOU THAT ANYTHING MORE IT LITERALLY "BABBIE FIRST DRAG AND DROP HOCKEY GAME"''.

Anything that makes C look good has to contain lies on some level. An enormous lie, like saying that C saved programmers from having to punch in hex codes every time they turn on the computer, makes C look like the best thing that happened to programming.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-10 19:02

>>10
Is this copypasta from a Redditor's first experience with C?

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-10 22:14

>>8
mental midget-kun is back
Who?

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-10 23:03

>>11
A programming language is supposed to makes things easier for programmers and C hackers act like that's a bad thing. With every other language, they tell you how the language is supposed to make things easier and more productive for people. C seems to be for people who are too dumb to punch hex opcodes on cards, but want the same amount of bugs.

What programming language book is this quote from?
The result should be a considerable reduction in the training required to program, as well as in the time consumed in writing programs and eliminating their errors.

Why should I lie to myself like Mr. "BABBIE FIRST DRAG AND DROP HOCKEY GAME" and pretend that C is beyond reproach and can't be criticized for its flaws and mistakes? It seems like people have to tell themselves outrageous lies in order to even like C. It reminds me of the Emperor's New Clothes.

"The Emperor's New Clothes" (Danish: Kejserens nye Klæder) is a short tale written by Danish author Hans Christian Andersen, about two weavers who promise an emperor a new suit of clothes that they say is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent - while in reality, they make no clothes at all, making everyone believe the clothes are invisible to them. When the emperor parades before his subjects in his new "clothes", no one dares to say that they do not see any suit of clothes on him for fear that they will be seen as stupid. Finally, a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!" The tale has been translated into over 100 languages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes

A lot of these C hackers call people ``unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent'' because they don't like C.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-10 23:11

>>13
OK, that's cool and all, but still doesn't answer my question.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 1:18

>>13
A programming language should make you as powerful as possible. I want to be in control of my machine. I don't want everything handed to me like I'm a babby

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 1:43

>>15
Wrong, asshole. A programming language should empower women and minorities otherwise it's useless.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 1:47

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 2:41

>>13
this. it's pretty incredible that Lisp (which is still a productive language in CURRENT_YEAR) existed at the same time as C. imagine the alternate universe where Lisp became popular instead of that garbage.

having been one of those smug C retards, I can tell you the primary motivation behind that mindset is ego and wanting to feel special. more so in the past, programmers were treated like wizards by the public--they liked that. then they wanted to carry over that reputation to programming itself. they wanted to do things the hard (retarded) way just to prove to themselves that they could do it. when they couldn't, they kept trying, and the shitty software all around us was born from that effort.

had they put aside their ego and just used something "easy" like Lisp, Python, or Java, the entire computer security industry would have no reason for existing.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 8:20

>>18
>had they put aside their ego and just used something "easy" like Lisp, Python, or Java, the entire computer security industry would have no reason for existing.

you are hilariously wrong. let me explain as someone who works in computer security: not all bugs are buffer overflows, and bugs that aren't buffer overflows cannot be prevented by using Lisp, Java or Python. low-level bugs that are eliminated by memory safe languages are commonly found either in performance-critical programs like multimedia codecs (so your garbage-collected languages are not the best choice here) or in operating system kernels, which need to be able to directly access memory so even if you wrote one in FIOC or lithp, you'd need a non-memory-safe superset, which would make many of the same errors possible (although some things would admittedly be less error-prone: Pascal-style strings as used in Java are harder to fuck up than null-terminated ones, and string processing is a huge source of C bugs).

meanwhile, FIOC and Java (Lisp not so much) are commonly used as backend languages in web applications and anyone with knowledge of web security knows that web application backends can be absurdly insecure. deserialization has huge exploitation potential: look up something on attacks based on ChainTransformer in Java and the security implications of pickle.loads() in Python. another common problem is using user-supplied data when constructing queries to different languages: SQL injection isn't just something that happens in PHP, and even more hilarity ensues when a web programmer passes arbitrary shit to Runtime.getRuntime().exec(). dynamic languages like FIOC also have good old eval(), which is also obviously easy to abuse.

Java is also the main language used in the Android operating system, and it's not like Android is some ultra-secure unhackable masterpiece of programming. and there are absolutely exploits that use its Java-based APIs and not just the underlying Linux OS - just read up on security of Android IPC. yes, most of it is about faulty logic and bad access control. that's what a lot of modern security is about.

and this brings us to my final point: most of the modern security is not actually about buffer overflows, cross-site scripting, race conditions, SQL injections or any other strictly programming-related errors. those things exist and they can be a source of major problems, but the biggest, most damaging and most high-profile attacks are less about that and more about policies, business logic and the good old social-engineering. why spend time searching for 0-days if you can phish passwords from employees because they are idiots and then access the whole network because the IT are idiots too?

PS. that's just scratching the surface. there's also crypto-related errors and hardware bugs. a good language won't fix bad math or bad electronics.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 9:20

Wrong assholes.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 9:35

>>20
wrong my anus

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 9:37

wrong those dubs

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 11:09

>>22
Back to 4chan, please.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 11:10

>>23
people who don't appreciate repeating digits have no place on /prague/

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 11:20

>>24
people who don't appreciate repeating digits
You mena nonautists?

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 11:46

>>25
why would nonautists go to /prague/?

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 12:24

>>24
This.
dubs are the essence of prog

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 12:29

>>27
Don't reply to your own post.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 12:34

>>28
you wish

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 12:34

>>19
Logic errors will always exist, but a crippled language such as C will push the burden of thinking about many more classes of error on the programmer when it is not necessary to do so.
Why do you think virtually all new desktop programs are written on top of a browser? It's because all the existing GUI APIs are crippled by being written in bad languages like C and C++, and it takes an enormous amount of code and effort to get anywhere close to what you could already do with a few lines in the 70s with Smalltalk.
A programming language with a non-memory-safe superset would have been a million times better, because it would have relegated the unsafe sections of a system to its edges where they belong, and let the average programmer work on the infrastructure that we base all of our programming on faster and using more sensible designs, not crippled by the mindset that comes with using a crippled language.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 12:42

>>30
this doesn't change the fact that 'security industry' would still exist without C - because as I
demonstrated in my post, low-level vulnerabilities caused by the lack of memory safety are currently just a small subset of what security is about

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 12:46

>>31
I know it doesn't, I wasn't really talking about security in my post.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 12:46

>>30-32
None of you know what you're talking about, anyway.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 12:47

This is a bad thread.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 12:51

>>32
see >>18
had they put aside their ego and just used something "easy" like Lisp, Python, or Java, the entire computer security industry would have no reason for existing.

thtat's the claim I was arguing against in >>19. because while I understand the benefits of high-level languages, I find the claim that memory-safety or type-safety 'solves' security laughable. nobody with any kind of experience in security would say such a thing.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 12:55

>>35
See >>33

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 12:56

>>36
then enlighten us.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 13:06

>>37
enhooken us*

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 13:08

enhooken my anus

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 13:25

any dubs soon here?

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 13:33

>>40
dubs are scarce these days

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 14:55

>>19
you're pointing to software written in C (SQL implementations, deserialization libraries that link to compiled C, etc.) as evidence that the memory-safe languages are unsafe too.

there will never be a way to ensure programmers don't create security exploits by making logic errors. finding these kinds of logic errors means being very familiar with the code. by contrast, buffer overflows and such all have a very specific pattern that you can look for. if the programmer couldn't find/fix the error in his own code, what hope does a security consultant have? if it's just obvious errors, then he's a shit progammer (how does he do the rest of his work?). either way I don't see the need.

in (very) high level languages, proper security becomes just another standard that the organization uses. there really should be only ONE way to ever do "forgot password" for example. aside from crypto and buffer overflows, security is mostly common sense.

as for the low level multimedia stuff and kernels, I think a good compromise is C++ with smart pointers, but even then only for hot loops.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 15:09

>>42
you're pointing to software written in C (SQL implementations, deserialization libraries that link to compiled C, etc.) as evidence that the memory-safe languages are unsafe too.
but SQL injections have nothing to do with C or memory, they'd be the same regardless of language used for the interpreter. same goes for deserialization and OS command injection. the issue is that user-supplied data is being inserted raw into what is essentially code. you could maybe argue that this is a type safety issue but even the fancy typefag research languages haven't solved that problem yet (because they'd rather focus on academic shit than on anything practical).
if the programmer couldn't find/fix the error in his own code, what hope does a security consultant have?
from experience? a lot of hope. programmers usually think in terms of intended use and unintentional error, not in terms of malicious misuse.
aside from crypto and buffer overflows, security is mostly common sense.
interfacing between different high-level languages is not common sense (and that's the source of deserialization errors, SQLi, XSS). race conditions are not common sense. any sort of complex interaction with untrusted input is not common sense. communication protocols are not common sense. also, given how common the social engineering attacks are - even common sense isn't that common.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 15:25

<- dubs, check them

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 17:46

>>19,31,43
You're unfamiliar with the idea of programming Satan's computer.

From the 50s to the 80s, when ``The result should be a considerable reduction in the training required to program, as well as in the time consumed in writing programs and eliminating their errors.'' was something programmers wanted, the problem was like >>30 said. That was Murphy's computer, preventing accidental bugs and damage by making programming easier. When programming becomes easier, bugs become harder to do accidentally. Programmers wanted this whether they were making the software for themselves or someone else. Users wanted reliable programs that worked.

But now we are in a different world: Satan's computer. This was brought about by Satanic hacks like the Morris worm. Now there are hacks that nobody would dream of doing on Murphy's computer. The problems are not caused by accidental bugs that hinder productivity and damage data, they are intentional malicious hacks.

If we have so many solutions, why aren't C programmers using them? They don't want solutions. They use C because they want programming to be bad forever. They want every computer to be Satan's computer forever.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 18:16

>>42
if the programmer couldn't find/fix the error in his own code, what hope does a security consultant have? if it's just obvious errors, then he's a shit progammer (how does he do the rest of his work?). either way I don't see the need.
That sounds like the Emperor's New Clothes again. You're saying these programmers are ``unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent''. The Bell Labs ``weavers'' made a lot of software with buffer overflows and a language that makes buffer overflows easier. C hackers say people used hex addresses before C brought English variables into programming, but that's a huge lie. C hackers are the townspeople marveling at how wonderful the Emperor's ``clothes'' were that weren't really there.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 21:45

>>1
* proprietary
* bloated
* overcosted
* dubious security and update scheme

Need I say more?

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 23:36

>>44
Back to 4chan, please.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-12 8:07

>>45
why did I even bother writing walls of text when you just reply with your usual bullshit? I guess it's my fault because I tried to explain things to you and have a reasonable discussion. while C can be blamed for some security issues, your idea that security wouldn't be a problem without C has as much to with reality as the idea that if C was not invented we'd have flying cars, cold fusion and anime would become real. you spend your time shitposting about mental midgets but the real mental midget was you all along.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-12 11:54

>>49
You think programming should suck forever because someone can call and say ``I'm with the FBI and I need your password to fight terrorism'' and some people might fall for that. That is ``mental midget'' thinking and that's why Satan wins. I don't believe that we shouldn't focus on things we can fix because of things we can't fix. Maybe if a less bug-prone language was used and we didn't have to spend billions of dollars fixing buffer overflows, we would have flying cars. Nobody would ever know what that money would have been used for.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-12 13:05

>>50
what are you babbling about? I never said any of that, I only said that (from experience) many security issues are not related to the use of C language you dumb fucking idiot. stop projecting and strawmanning or just go fuck yourself.


I know, IHBT

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-12 17:51

>>51
many security issues are not related to the use of C language
That's true, but many security issues are and that's exactly what my response >>50 is about. Programmers convince themselves that C is good but they're too stupid or incompetent to see why and they blame themselves for bugs that would not happen in any other language, exactly like they are convinced that the Emperor is wearing these really fine clothes they are too stupid or incompetent to see.

There are some bugs that will not be solved by any programming language, like people pretending to be FBI agents, but if we get rid of the problems that were already solved decades ago, we will have more time and money to solve real problems that are not so easily solved.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-12 18:22

Satan is
Stopped reading there.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-12 18:45

satan=systemd

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-13 9:38

>>54
This.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-14 6:19

>>54
systemd is written in C and managed with the ``information manager from hell''

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-14 7:03

>>56
systemd is written in C...()
So is OpenRC, except the latter wasn't written by an incompetent shithead.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List