undefined

points

[-]

Most likely C++ would not happened, while at the same time C and UNIX adoption would never gotten big enough to be relevant outside Bell Labs.

Which then again, isn't that much of a deal, industry would have steered into other programming languages and operating systems.

Overall that would be a much preferable alternative timeline, assuming security would be taken more seriously, as it has taken 45 years since C.A.R Hoare Turing award speech and Morris worm, and only after companies and government started to feel the monetary pain of their decisions.

by uecker2 days ago|

parent|

[-]

I think there are very good reasons why C and UNIX were successful and are still around as foundational technologies. Nor do I think C or UNIX legacy are the real problem we have with security. Instead, complexity is the problem.

by pjmlp1 days ago|

parent|

[-]

Starting by being available for free with source code tapes, and a commented source code book.

History would certainly have taken a different path when AT&T was allowed to profit from Bell Labs work, as their attempts to later regain control from UNIX prove.

Unfortunately that seems the majority opinion on WG14, only changed thanks to government and industry pressure.

by uecker1 days ago|

parent|

[-]

Being free was important and history could have taken many paths, but this does not explain why it is still important today and has not been replaced despite many alternatives. WG14 consists mostly of industry representatives.

by pjmlp1 days ago|

parent|

[-]

It is important today just like COBOL and Fortran are with ongoing ISO updates, sunken cost, no one is getting more money out of rewriting their systems just because, unless there are external factors, like government regulations.

Then we have the free beer UNIX clones as well.

Those industry members of WG14 don't seem to have done much security wise language improvement during the last 50 years.

by uecker1 days ago|

parent|

[-]

I think this is far from the truth.