Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Fri 14th Jan 2011 14:58 UTC, submitted by Debjit
GNU, GPL, Open Source "Steve Chang, the Chairman of Trend Micro, has kicked up a controversy by claiming that open source software is inherently less secure. When talking about the security of smartphones, Chang claimed that the iPhone is more secure than Android because being an open-source platform, attackers know more about the underlying architecture."
Thread beginning with comment 458368
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: So what code is secure?
by moondevil on Sun 16th Jan 2011 12:19 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: So what code is secure?"
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

Before C existed, there were already a few operating systems written in BCPL, ALGOL and PL/I, even FORTRAN dialects, just to name a few old friends to everyone here that is old enough to remember them.

For example, do you know that the first versions of MacOS were written in a mixture of Pascal and Assembly?

C's success is a consequence of UNIX's widespread. At the time everyone wanted to play with UNIX, and coding for UNIX meant using C.

I am quite sure that without UNIX, C would never had become popular.

That was the main problem with the referred languages. For a language to be a successful systems programming language, it needs to be the official programming language for a successful operating system.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

That was the main problem with the referred languages. For a language to be a successful systems programming language, it needs to be the official programming language for a successful operating system.

There's something which puzzles me in this conclusion. If I remember well, UNIX was not initially C-based, right ?

So why did Ritchie et al. decide to create C ? What was wrong with existing system programming languages on these days ? Why didn't they use the official programming language for a successful operating system instead of baking their own ?

Edited 2011-01-16 13:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

kerframil Member since:
2005-07-13

So why did Ritchie et al. decide to create C ? What was wrong with existing system programming languages on these days ? Why didn't they use the official programming language for a successful operating system instead of baking their own ?


Apparently, B - the successor to BCPL and predecessor of C - was an awkward fit for the PDP-11. Take a look at the section entitled "The problems of B" from Ritchie's historical treatise:

http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/chist.html

Reply Parent Score: 1