21–30 of 511 posts
Unfortunately, this is just a promotion for a series of videos. Probably talking head videos with PowerPoints. Most people who do systems programming probably already know about Rust. They may not have used it, but know it exists. What's "Hacks"?
Now I have four services running on production, all written with Rust. If it compiles, it usually works. Of course you have these late night sessions where you write that one unwrap() because, hey, this will never return an error, right? And bam... I'm seriously waiting that tokio train to be stable and a unified way of writing async services without needing to use some tricks with the channels or writing lots of ugl…
Although I am not against improving the safety of languages we use for system programming, the model that Rust advocates are pushing of "preventing mistakes" as a way to make systems secure doesn't convince me. Mistakes (and security breaches) happen. A system should be written in such a way as mistakes are few, indeed, however it is essential to also efficiently protect our users' assets (data) first, assuming that…
Unfortunately, this is just a promotion for a series of videos. Probably talking head videos with PowerPoints. Most people who do systems programming probably already know about Rust. They may not have used it, but know it exists. What's "Hacks"?
> Probably talking head videos with PowerPoints.
These are unscripted responses to questions, no powerpoint involved.
> They may not have used it, but know it exists.
Although I am not against improving the safety of languages we use for system programming, the model that Rust advocates are pushing of "preventing mistakes" as a way to make systems secure doesn't convince me. Mistakes (and security breaches) happen. A system should be written in such a way as mistakes are few, indeed, however it is essential to also efficiently protect our users' assets (data) first, assuming that…
Nothing prevents you from doing both approaches. I mean, while Mozilla is increasing Rust usage, they're also rolling out more extensive sandboxing. Either of those by themselves are not a good enough solution though. Just trusting on Rust means you are vulnerable to Rust bugs or logic errors. Just trusting on sandboxing means you're hoping that your trusted code (written in C/C++) doesn't have any security bugs.
Although I am not against improving the safety of languages we use for system programming, the model that Rust advocates are pushing of "preventing mistakes" as a way to make systems secure doesn't convince me. Mistakes (and security breaches) happen. A system should be written in such a way as mistakes are few, indeed, however it is essential to also efficiently protect our users' assets (data) first, assuming that…
Nothing prevents you from doing both approaches. I mean, while Mozilla is increasing Rust usage, they're also rolling out more extensive sandboxing. Either of those by themselves are not a good enough solution though. Just trusting on Rust means you are vulnerable to Rust bugs or logic errors. Just trusting on sandboxing means you're hoping that your trusted code (written in C/C++) doesn't have any security bugs.
I'll never use rust for anything important. Too dangerous, unstable, badly organized, toxic development community, the list goes on.
Unfortunately, this is just a promotion for a series of videos. Probably talking head videos with PowerPoints. Most people who do systems programming probably already know about Rust. They may not have used it, but know it exists. What's "Hacks"?
> Probably talking head videos with PowerPoints. Almost everyone in this video is an engineer on Rust, Servo, or Firefox. The exception is Dave Herman, head of Mozilla Research. These are unscripted responses to questions, no powerpoint involved. > They may not have used it, but know it exists. There are a lot of programmers in the world, and many of them don't read Hacker News. I meet new people who have never heard…
> but remember their first impression from a pre-1.0 version