> Everyone that cares about security hates VLAs,
Love and hate are emotional considerations not really worthy in this context. I would say that everybody that sees C as a valid replacement of Fortran loves and relies on VLAs and complex types. And there's probably much more people in the world interested in numeric codes than in "security" codes.
> that is why ISO acknowledged the mistake of placing them into C99 and removed them from the standard in C11.
This is most certainly not true. First, I'm almost sure that ISO never acknowledged any mistake with VLAs. Can you point me to where ISO acknowledged that purported mistake?
More importantly, your statement is false because ISO never removed VLA from the standard. That would be untoward and very contrary to their traditions. If they really wanted to remove them they would start by first deprecating them, and they are not deprecated. They are merely an optional feature of the language, just like the "main()" function is. The standard defines different kinds of conforming implementations, and some of them include VLA. Thus it is an official part of the language.
> WG14 has acknowledged their mistake
LOL. Funny that you mention that, since WG14 has added a whole new principle (the fifteenth) to their design document to acknowledge for VLA in future interfaces: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2086.htm
Love and hate are emotional considerations not really worthy in this context. I would say that everybody that sees C as a valid replacement of Fortran loves and relies on VLAs and complex types. And there's probably much more people in the world interested in numeric codes than in "security" codes.
> that is why ISO acknowledged the mistake of placing them into C99 and removed them from the standard in C11.
This is most certainly not true. First, I'm almost sure that ISO never acknowledged any mistake with VLAs. Can you point me to where ISO acknowledged that purported mistake?
More importantly, your statement is false because ISO never removed VLA from the standard. That would be untoward and very contrary to their traditions. If they really wanted to remove them they would start by first deprecating them, and they are not deprecated. They are merely an optional feature of the language, just like the "main()" function is. The standard defines different kinds of conforming implementations, and some of them include VLA. Thus it is an official part of the language.
> WG14 has acknowledged their mistake
LOL. Funny that you mention that, since WG14 has added a whole new principle (the fifteenth) to their design document to acknowledge for VLA in future interfaces: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2086.htm