@MSGID: AsA.196497@fx18.iad>
a7c0c18e
@REPLY: 1@news.xmission.com>
a978a219
@REPLYADDR Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Scott Lurndal
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-Reply-To: slp53@pacbell.net
@RFC-References:
<9e7a4bd1-bfbb-4df7-af1a-27ca9625e50bn@googlegroups.com> 1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me>
<87lee55t51.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> 1@news.xmission.com>
@RFC-Message-ID:
AsA.196497@fx18.iad>
@TZUTC: 0000
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>In article <87lee55t51.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>,
>Rainer Weikusat  <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>...
>>It`s  not written  in  a language  whose  extremely complicate  runtime
>>system that`s  conjectured to  be bug  free in  this respect  by Really
>>Wishful Thinking[tm] is supposed to prevent simple memory access errors
>>C supports.
>
>What language was this quoted paragraph written in?
>
>Preumably one in which word order doesn`t matter.

Word order in German and English don`t always agree.

Basically he is saying, somewhat mockingly, that because it is
not written in Rust, sudo written in C is inherently memory unsafe.
--- xrn 9.03-beta-14-64bit
 * Origin: UsenetServer - www.usenetserver.com (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441