Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

marc.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 344 posts

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#181

Post by rbehrends »

steveklabnik wrote: post #157
cat199 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are a few notable exceptions that only require a C compiler, no internet access during their build, and build in an acceptably short time: most any scheme/lisp compiler as well requiring internet access and binary bootstrap toolkits thing for the core piece of an ecosystem (e.g. the language compiler) is decidedly new-school, rooted in overly commercial projects, and for the worst, imho. ps: lawn.

To be clear, rustc and Rust projects generally do not require the internet to build. It's a hard requirement of many projects, like Debian or Firefox.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Rust did. For me, it's primarily a problem with some JVM-related tools.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#182

Post by JdeBP »

nanolith wrote: post #161

I have spent a long time using alternative languages. I'm a compiler geek. However, most of these languages ultimately lead to disappointment. Not because they necessarily fail, but rather because the problem of writing software is not a problem of language or platform. It is a problem of thought and abstraction. So, the big promises that these new languages and platforms make will ultimately only be fulfilled for a…

A couple of minor notes.

OpenBSD does not have the Bourne shell. One gets the C shell, the Korn shell, and the Korn shell in POSIX mode: no Bourne shell; nor Bourne Again shell.

It is interesting to note that in FreeBSD Perl was removed from the base operating system about a decade and a half ago. So there's apparently an argument to be had that knowledge of Perl need not be required. (-:

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#183

Post by blub »

jackpot51 wrote: post #4

Theo is completely ignorant here. I also saw him spout similar inaccuracies in this video: https://youtu.be/fYgG0ds2_UQ?t=2112 Uutils and Redox are setting out to provide POSIX compatible coreutils, and Redox builds from scratch in less than 30 minutes.

You might want to add a disclaimer or at least a note in your profile that you're the same jackpot51 which is the creator of Redox.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#184

Post by sitkack »

mitchty wrote: post #121
sitkack wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And thus they lock themselves into the lowest common denominator as they target smaller systems. This is ridiculous. OpenBSD looks like performance art, literal security theater.

> And thus they lock themselves into the lowest common denominator as they target smaller systems. This is ridiculous. OpenBSD looks like performance art, literal security theater. Those lowest common denominator systems tend to find bugs not present elsewhere. And stating that openbsd looks like performance art and security theater seems to indicate you haven't looked at what openbsd has done for security.

OpenBSD can be security theater and still do great things. But at some point sticking to an 90s Unix/C aesthetic looks deeply anachronistic.

Yes, bugs are found at boundaries and interfaces, large or small. Something has to be different for the output to be different.

If someone writes a bug proof TLS implementation while at the bottom of the pool wearing SCUBA gear, it is still security theater.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#185

Post by sitkack »

Nokinside wrote: post #95

If "safe" language would be real magic pill for safe programming, Ada would have replaced C and C++ in systems programming and safety critical applications long time ago.

And it should have. The use of C and C++ in safety critical applications should be classified as gross negligence.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#186

Post by mikepurvis »

im3w1l wrote: post #132
mikepurvis wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard disagree. Compilation is like encoding a video— it's a price you pay once, and if you know the resulting binary will be run millions of times, it's totally worthwhile spending a lot of compute and memory upfront to get that binary as fast as possible.

A fast edit-compile-run cycle makes development a lot more efficient in my experience.

Right, definitely! But in that case, it's really incremental build time that's the important thing. Not that overall/first build time isn't important too, but in general I'd rather see my incremental build go down by 80% than my first build go down by 20%, and I think this is reflected in where the Rust team has historically applied their perf efforts, eg: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2016/09/08/incremental.html

(Appreciating as well that most incremental build gains come from avoiding unnecessary work, so they're as much the domain of the build system as they are of the compiler.)

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#187

Post by steveklabnik »

rbehrends wrote: post #181
steveklabnik wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, rustc and Rust projects generally do not require the internet to build. It's a hard requirement of many projects, like Debian or Firefox.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Rust did. For me, it's primarily a problem with some JVM-related tools.

It's all good!

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#188

Post by kps »

emidln wrote: post #142
Paianni wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They support 486's though, which is quite rare for 2017.

486s and 586s are still sold for usage as embedded systems. They are well understood and some of them managed to pass certification decades ago.

You can still buy 32-bit Xeons, even. Sometimes srs bsns requires stability, too.

https://ark.intel.com/Search/FeatureFilter?productType=proce...

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#189

Post by jrockway »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #9
mrweasel wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is sort of addressed by Theo: >Such ecosystems come with incredible costs. For instance, rust cannot even compile itself on i386 at present time because it exhausts the address space.

Rust fell into the same trap that killed many, many gamedev companies: Performance matters. Even more than features.

Is that still true? PUBG is probably the worst-optimized game ever written, barely getting 60fps on a setup that can run Overwatch at 200+ fps. And yet, it's the most-played game on Steam.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#190

Post by jackpot51 »

lifty wrote: post #130
simias wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on, I really like Rust but these types of comments are why people like Theo de Raadt don't take the evangelists seriously. You can't take a project like OpenBSD that has existed for more than 20 years, is being used right now to power all kinds of applications around the world on all kinds of architectures and say that Redox, an experimental x86-64 OS, is viable competition. What with the seven applications writ…

I love this. I think both of you are right, but your perspectives are for different time frames, with one side having an ideal view about a future time frame, while the other thinking about the now. This is the kind of situation that leads to innovation and how projects like Linux or neovim started. It's a natural way to progress. I hope jackpot51 gets pissed off and takes redox to the point where it proves the naysa…

That is precisely what I am going to do
Post reply on HN