Re: [9fans] Is Plan 9 C "Less Dangerous?"

[Skip Tavakkolian <skip.tavakkolian@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1178 bytes --]

To me, one of the big advantages for Plan 9 is structural, not necessarily
related to C. There's no need to put everything in the kernel and one can
have different specialized kernels (e.g. kenfs), so long as the basic
protocols are followed.

On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 9:32 AM Chris McGee <newton688@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I'm reading this article about how they are going through the giant
> heaping pile of Linux kernel code and trying to come up with safer
> practices to avoid the "dangers" of C. The prevailing wisdom appears to be
> that things should eventually be rewritten in Rust some day.
>
> https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/763641/c9a04da2a33af0a3/
>
> I'm curious how the Plan 9 C compiler fits into this story. I know that it
> was designed to avoid many of the pitfalls of standard C. Does it try to
> address some of these dangers or is it focused on making code more readable
> so that problems are more apparent?
>
> How does everyone feel about the Plan 9/9front kernel? Have they gone
> through hardening/testing exercises over the years? I'm curious what tools
> are available to help discover bugs.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1655 bytes --]