AutoIt v 3.3.12.0 and OS support

[czardas]

I wonder how much is actually broken and how much is shielding for remote exploits. I imagine it would be impossible to predict all exploitable vunerabilities in the future, and this would imply that it's also impossible to produce an OS that isn't broken (at least if it goes online) unless it's 100% pure ROM.

Edited July 10, 2014 by czardas

[jchd]

I believe that every patch issued by WU is closely examined by black hats to monitor which vulnerability(-ies) was fixed. So patching against known exploits is obviously necessary.

It would be possible to produce a 100% (not 99.99999999999............99999999%) bug-free OS but this would require use of a formal method which can produce compilable code on a proven compiler AND have the whole hardware passed to formal method as well for a 100% proof of correctness. Of course that would also mean fixing protocols currently in use.

That would require an army of specialists and large resources but it's feasible at humanity scale, especially given that it would give us a stable and proven correct.platform imune to attacks. The issue is that having that would essentially stop hardware and software products turnover and accompanying sales.

[czardas]

I imagined it.

[jchd]

This process is actually used in some high-end mission-critical embedded systems, but the those OS part don't compare to Windows, Linux, MacInTrash and such.

[FaridAgl]

Sorry for kind of off-topic.

Does it makes any sense to you (Anyone):

Func Foo()
    Local Static Const $var = "Whatever"
    ; Or
    Local Const Static $var = "Whatever"
EndFunc

[Richard Robertson]

I think that it would be easier to write optimized software for a world where we don't have to worry about potential intruders. Fast code isn't the safest code. If we just get rid of bad people, there's no more reason to have security software. Free up resources. No more security updates for OS. Free up resources.

Resources for all the good little boys and girls.

[jaberwacky]

 

Sorry for kind of off-topic.

Does it makes any sense to you (Anyone):

Func Foo()
    Local Static Const $var = "Whatever"
    ; Or
    Local Const Static $var = "Whatever"
EndFunc

It makes sense to me.  It doesn't seem to be valid syntax though.  It would simply declare a const variable which isn't destroyed when the function goes out of scope.

Btw: (To AutoIt developers, MVPs, and other relevant members) -- Would this make a valid feature request?

Edited July 11, 2014 by jaberwacky

[FaridAgl]

Here is another snippet which explains more:
 

Func Foo() ;A function which will be called a lot

    Local Const Static $hControl = GUICtrlGetHandle($iCtrlId)
    ; I don't want the above line to be executed each time the function get called
    ; I don't want to declare $hControl as a global variable, I don't need it anywhere else maybe
    ; I don't want to change $hControl's value by a mistake

    ;...
EndFunc

[jchd]

Exactly. Just think of Local Static Const $seed = Random(<something>)