[148676] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: [Cryptography] RSA is dead.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James A. Donald)
Tue Dec 24 18:59:34 2013
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2013 09:18:34 +1000
From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com>
To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: <52BA051A.1010207@iang.org>
Reply-To: jamesd@echeque.com
Errors-To: cryptography-bounces+crypto.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@metzdowd.com
> > On 2013-12-23 08:55, Jerry Leichter wrote:
> > > http://graphics.stanford.edu/~danielrh/vote/mzalewski.c - just one
> On 24/12/13 10:03 AM, James A. Donald wrote:
>> Not having the developer in front of me to be roasted, took thirty
>> minutes of my time.
On 2013-12-25 08:05, ianG wrote:
> 90 mins + copious slurps of xmas cheer + rusty(C),,,, and I found it.
> effing macros, this bird is worth two in the ...
>
> I think I somewhat agree with James. I could have rewritten that code
> in less time than it took to fund the flaw.
You probably have written a lot more code than I, and reviewed a lot less.
If that code had faced code review, reviewers would have demanded a
rewrite without bothering to find if there were any flaws.
As you say, effing macros.
Macros and templates should only be used when they provide obvious and
substantial advantages. A multiline macro referencing external
variables is obfuscated code. Worse than closures.
Macros and templates are justified if they are self contained and
massively re-used, or if they concisely express the concept better than
the actual implementation, for example operator less, for code that can
be and will be interchanged with any other operator less.
_______________________________________________
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography@metzdowd.com
http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
