How exactly would that help? You could md5 hash a password and a timestamp, and this would at least limit the amount of time that a hashed password could be replayed, but it would not prevent the replay of the password. The nature of a hash is that it isn't something that you decode. It obscures something from view, so that a party on the other end, if it knows the same secret, can verify that you know the secret, without divulging the secret publicly.

But if someone can snoop your hash, they can replay it and pretend they know the secret, without actually knowing it.

This is why a hash protects the secret, but doesn't protect the service from replay attacks, you need encryption also.

A hash is a good idea to be used in concert with encryption because then, even if the encryption is broken, the secret is not exposed. But a hash in itself is not a secure way to assert identity.

I don't use other people's wifi for the same reason I wouldn't share a junkie's needle.

furthermore the entire usefulness of md5 is that you can't un-md5 it ;-)

md5 is a hash algorithm. How would that help? If someone can snoop your md5 hash they can replay it to gain access to the server, and then change your password (provided the server doesn't provide a challenge to perform this action). All md5 does is protect your actual password, which is small protection if your account can be illicitly accessed anyway. None of these services send a password in plaintext (hopefully). That isn't the issue. The issue is that they use replayable tokens and don't use encryption to send them on the wire.

I was calling programmers that enjoyed c++ masochistic and in excess of machismo, not unskilled, and as I've alluded to in other replies, mostly to illicit some kind of interesting defense of their like of this language. Because, honestly, I'm curious. C/C++ eroded my goodwill long ago.

You can wax lyrical about the warm feeling you get when you are careful and your C code works, against the odds, but usually getting C code to behave without error just seems to waste large amounts of time, which, IMO, makes it very hard to like.

but is that a reason to LIKE it, or a reason you NEED it. Even then, I would argue only the most performance critical pieces might need conversion to C. Why start with C?

Perhaps read my statement a bit more carefully. I'm not calling anyone that uses C++ wrong-headed. Now if you use it and enjoy it, thats a different story.

I am being the devil's advocate to a degree here. I'm genuinely interested in the reasons people have to LIKE C++. Not just the reasons why they NEED to use it.

There's that machismo again. Zip your pants back up, I don't have a ruler on me.

Using C because its "more efficient" is like making tons of micro-optimizations before you even know where your performance problems are. It just wastes time and means you eschew the use of more appropriate tools for the task at hand.

I've never once been so dissatisfied with the performance of a higher-level language (that compiles to native code) that I've had to bust out the C compiler. Even then it would make sense to only code the performance critical section in C and leave the rest to a more productive language.

Starting with C is just asking to spend time making optimizations you may never ever need. YAGNI. Wait till you need to optimize before you even consider C, is what I say, and if you are forced to use it, you don't have to like it! :)

You can argue that well written C code is easier to understand, but the reality is that certain languages (C, C++, JavaScript, vb6) feel like they are designed to encourage developers to be incredibly sloppy. So in practice when you try to read them you are presented with monolithic code written in alien dialects.

Yes, you can write indecipherable code in any language. But I think a sensible language should at least try to discourage it.

I'm not sure, though, that would actually make you like it ;-)

You'd keep doing it if the money was good enough, but like it?

Could you explain concretely what you like about working with C?

I used to claim the same thing, but after years not being required to use C, in hindsight, I can chalk up every reason I enjoyed it to senseless machismo, and my most concrete memories are of all the time of mine C wasted by not warning of or preventing egregious errors from simple typographical mistakes.

I would never choose C if starting a new project, and it still baffles me that some do. But to each his own I guess :) Just glad I don't need to read their code!

I do believe that anyone that claims to actually like working with C or C++ is either

1) Unfamiliar with any languages that don't let you shoot yourself in the face so easily.
2) More like a machine than a man.
3) Trying to show off his "hacking skillz".
4) Being overly nostalgic.
5) Hasn't actually used C or C++ in about a decade.


IMHO using C or C++ when not necessary displays a depressing amount of machismo and masochism. Why do it to yourself?

You can write managed code against the XNA framework to target both WP7 and the XBox. For the iPhone, I believe there is an option to compile the managed code to iPhone native code, but I haven't looked into it too far as of yet, believe the project is called Unity?

Shouldn't he count himself lucky people have trouble discerning fantasy from reality? Job security.

Powershell embraces a lot of functional programming paradigms rather than relegating everything to pipeline based text processing. There is a reason why its codename was "Monad". It was designed around passing objects and tables around using a common type system, to create more flexible interaction between all the different cmdlets. Anyone that has used Linq will also notice a lot of similarities on that front. Again, as I forewarned, I certainly haven't used every shell out there, so I really don't know how many of these are unique to Powershell. But I don't think it should be relegated to the knee-jerk "me too" labels people seem to want to apply to it, as it seems a good deal of thought and iteration went into its design.