From: David Ross <drossruby@...>
Date: 2004-08-28T13:48:01+09:00
Subject: Re: performance comparison


--- Jamis Buck <jgb3@email.byu.edu> wrote: 
> To clarify, then: David, you are talking about the C
> 'gets()' function, 
> correct? I agree that it should be avoided at all
> costs. However, Ruby's 
> "gets()" function does not map directly to a C
> "gets()" invocation -- it 
> does a lot more work, including bounds checking. 
> Thus, saying "gets() 
> is unsafe in every language" is rather misleading. I
> won't say it is 
> "safe" in Ruby, since I'm not an expert in this
> area, but it is 
> certainly not as hazardous to use as in vanilla C
> code.
> 
> (Someone please flame me gently if I've mispoken
> anything grossly 
> regarging Ruby's internals...)
> 
> - Jamis
> 

hrm.. well I don't know for sure.. I was told on
freenode #ruby-lang it was insecure when I asked about
it. Though I never actually read through the code to
see.

reading code... 

appendline(..) is restricted to 8192 bytes. :) Okay,
so it does perform checking. A specification on ruby
would really help :) Its really hard reading thousands
of lines of code and trying to understand all of ruby.

Matz: *cough* *cough* you should write what is in your
head and on paper for everybody :)

..... <snip>
int cnt = bp - buf;

if (cnt > 0) {
..... </snip>

----------------------------------------
-- Name: David Ross
-- Phone: 8965.539.3798
-- Email: drossruby [at] yahoo [dot] com
----------------------------------------


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail