Re: Release 1.1 (beta) of my AES implementation
From: Tom St Denis (tomstdenis_at_iahu.ca)
Date: 06/25/03
- Next message: Tom St Denis: "Re: Release 1.1 (beta) of my AES implementation"
- Previous message: Marin: "Re: Release 1.1 (beta) of my AES implementation"
- In reply to: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Release 1.1 (beta) of my AES implementation"
- Next in thread: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Release 1.1 (beta) of my AES implementation"
- Reply: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Release 1.1 (beta) of my AES implementation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:14:55 GMT
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>
> Tom St Denis wrote:
>
>
>>So what did you have in mind?
>>
>>#include "aes.c"
>>#include "sha1.c"
>>#include "...."
>>
>>???
>
>
> Exactly. (Unfortunately.)
>
>
>>You're not going to get any users [re: bug finders] that way.
>
>
> I am not sure of that. In my past experience lots of
> people program that way.
Lots of script kiddies maybe. From my experience the software
developers at companies like Intel, Microsoft, HP, Sony and many
universities seem to like it the way I do it.
Your approach lacks serious finess and is a pain in larger scale
projects. Heck even LTM [which is fairly small] takes about a minute to
build on my 2Ghz processor. If I had to rebuild it each time I wanted
to check a simple idea out I wouldn't get anything done.
Now imagine using your style of coding in a project 10 tims bigger than
LTM....
>Or am I missing something?
Yeah, post secondary education in computer science....
That being said... imagine this case
- one application
- splits into two threads both use AES
- both threads share memory space
This is common, specially for your beloved win32 platform [as a note of
interest threads are not common in unix and are emulated in Linux].
Applications which may need to handle more than one connection [e.g.
sockets] or handle bi-directional pipes, etc...
Sure, if you intend to write single thread applications only then your
approach works fine.
My point though, is why limit yourself out of the gate? You should
always try to write the best code you can [e.g. as portable as can be,
as thread safe as can be, as flexible as can be, etc...].
If you cripple your code out of the gate then it can only really go
downhill from there. And to be honest "good" coding style doesn't
involve a lot of work when you are in the habit of doing it. Makefiles
are simple to write, proper code factoring [e.g. no code in headers] is
simple to do, writing thread safe routines is fairly trivial, etc...
You asked for comments on your code. I'm giving you the dime tour of
what a high school grad knows in CS. Imagine if a real pro actually
replied... whoa...
Tom
- Next message: Tom St Denis: "Re: Release 1.1 (beta) of my AES implementation"
- Previous message: Marin: "Re: Release 1.1 (beta) of my AES implementation"
- In reply to: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Release 1.1 (beta) of my AES implementation"
- Next in thread: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Release 1.1 (beta) of my AES implementation"
- Reply: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Release 1.1 (beta) of my AES implementation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|