C is not portable assembly

diff --git a/ralf/_posts/2018-07-24-pointers-and-bytes.md b/ralf/_posts/2018-07-24-pointers-and-bytes.md
index c79cf61225bf770448d284d82c0a7fc9090c64ec..adf82bd8d8e724b2a4b2597113207798e4cd1603 100644 (file)
--- a/ralf/_posts/2018-07-24-pointers-and-bytes.md
+++ b/ralf/_posts/2018-07-24-pointers-and-bytes.md
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ I hope that by the end of this post, you will agree with me on both of these sta
 ## Pointers Are Complicated
 
 What is the problem with "pointers are just integers"?  Let us consider the following example:<br>
-(I am using C++ code here mostly because writing unsafe code is easier in C++, and unsafe code is where these problems really show up.)
+(I am using C++ code here mostly because writing unsafe code is easier in C++, and unsafe code is where these problems really show up. C has all the same issues, as does unsafe Rust.)
 {% highlight c++ %}
 int test() {
     auto x = new int[8];
@@ -227,6 +227,7 @@ Using `Uninit` instead of an arbitrary bit pattern means miri can, in a single e
 ## Conclusion
 
 We have seen that in languages like C++ and Rust (unlike on real hardware), pointers can be different even when they point to the same address, and that a byte is more than just a number in `0..256`.
+This is also why calling C "portable assembly" may have been appropriate in 1978, but is a dangerously misleading statement nowadays.
 With this, I think we are ready to look at a first draft of my "2018 memory model" (working title ;) -- in the next post. :)
 
 Thanks to @rkruppe and @nagisa for help in finding arguments for why `Uninit` is needed.