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

191–200 of 344 posts

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#191

Post by legosteen11 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #163
sgift wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have told me for the longest time that Java is a shitty language I shouldn't be using. Most of those people said C++ would be a far better idea without even bothering to show any reason why C++ would be more suited besides "Java is slow, huahuaha, it is shitty, huahahaha". So, I have to admit I take a bit of a pleasure of seeing those people getting challenged on their presumption that C++ is the greatest lang…

> People have told me for the longest time that Java is a shitty language I shouldn't be using. Java is a great language in theory, the problem with Java is that people have evolved to use layers upon layers upon even more layers of abstractions, the tooling is horrenduos (try configuring maven vs npm) and especially all complex Java applications end up being as slow as molasses (e.g. SAP GUI, Lotus Notes, Eclipse, j…

How is Maven (or Gradle, but I prefer Maven) bad? I've never used npm, but I quite like Maven's use of XML for defining project dependencies etc. with clear structure.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#192

Post by drb91 »

2trill2spill wrote: post #20
rtpg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a bit of a trite point unless many rust developers are actually working inside i386. Though the compiler itself might not work very well in i386. Not many people are whining about our C compiler toolchains not fitting into our microcontrollers.

> This seems like a bit of a trite point unless many rust developers are actually working inside i386. Though the compiler itself might not work very well in i386. Trite point? OpenBSD supports 1386[1] if they pull a rust compiler into base and start rewriting things in rust, then they can't support 1386. Dropping a supported platform is not a "trite point". [1]: https://www.openbsd.org/plat.html

How do you even find an i386 processor these days?

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#193

Post by Polyisoprene »

Seems most os developers don’t care about the users and only about their maintenance and adoption cost.

I WANT my computer and files protected by software written in a safe way using safe languages. I don’t care about the compile time of grep, I stopped caring about that kind of dick measurement competitions a long time ago.

Give me a safe, open operating system and I’m willing to trade Posix compatibility and compile speed.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#194

Post by foodstances »

ghostly_s wrote: post #179
joshklein wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this misunderstands the OpenBSD philosophy. The more likely it is "everyone else" disagrees, the more likely it is Theo is choosing the right course for the project. The system being secure is a secondary benefit to it being comprehendible and coherent to an individual. It's not enough for the output of a magic box to be a better widget, even if the widget is better in every measurable way. The box itself mus…

> The system being secure is a secondary benefit to it being comprehendible and coherent to an individual. This is a really interesting and compelling philosophy to me, but it’s the first time I’ve heard OpenBSD described this way! Why is this not mentioned on the project’s homepage?

https://www.openbsd.org/goals.html

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#195

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #89
SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run full Windows 10 on a tablet (dual core, 2GB RAM), and it's pretty amazing to me how many websites that have no reason to run slow completely fail on it. I can only imagine it works fine on dev machines with much faster quad+ cores and 64GB of RAM or whatever. Just as an aside, it's done a lot to have the tablet be my primary "fiddle-at-home" machine: keeps me really conscious of resource limits, including ones…

Win10 just doesn't work well on 2GiB. Compressed pages are nice but not enough to prevent swapping. It also doesn't help that MS prevents you from running 32-bit on modern hardware to alleviate some of the memory pressure. The solution is to install 32-bit Linux on it. Then it won't suck.

Firstly, shut your mouth -- you have no business telling me that my computers "suck" when they serve my needs. It doesn't suck and is one of the most pleasant machines I own due to small size and low upkeep of the OS.

32-bit Win10 works fine on dual-core 2GB of RAM for almost all of my uses (and is the one that shipped with it -- so perhaps check your sources before posting), with notable exceptions being Electron apps and bloated webpages.

Your comment is absolutely bad:

You're factually wrong about 32bit Win10; your opinion that it doesnt work well is useless when I clearly feel it works fine for me in general, modulo a few uses I called out; your recommendation of what to do is beyond offensive -- just run a different OS that won't solve the issue because it'll meet your pretentious standard? The issue is that certain websites are bloated and always going to overwhelm a dual-core Atom processor, regardless of OS.

You should refrain from posting comments like you did here -- they make the community worse. You should also reconsider how you provide tech support, in general.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#196

Post by ansible »

SCHiM wrote: post #15

The points made against switching to newer languages are valid. It will cost time, it will cost effort, it will take many years of work to convince stubborn maintainers to switch. But it will not stop _everyone_ from adopting better languages, and their efforts will eventually surpass the older, less secure systems. When there's feature parity, each and every new exploit will be called out: "this wouldn't have happen…

As for the point about how nobody is working on replacements, that's wrong. There's (partial) replacements for most coreutils written in rust, and a whole kernel has been under active development for years now.

I acknowledge the strong pull to go and re-implement existing standards like POSIX in a new language like Rust.

But, having had to again deal with all the corner cases of signal handling and threads for a Linux application, I encourage any prospective Rust OS developers to pick a different path.

Please, please, let's move beyond POSIX. Give me a sane set of operating system API calls that work in a reasonable way together. And that can compose easily.

So that future developers don't have to deal with file read calls that may (or may not) be interrupted by a signal, and all that.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#197

Post by [deleted] »

steveklabnik wrote: post #174
_jal wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a sort of social game that seems to emerge at some point, combining the worst of in-group bullshit and logic-puzzlng as a substitute for actually attempting to help folks honestly seeking questions. The game goes like this: start discussing something: say, including rust in OpenBSD. - Assume it (here, using rust in oBSD) is a great idea. - For each objection, explain why it is trivial. Your tools are your ow…

Where was this? If it was in an official Rust forum, we don't allow "jackass responses", and I'd like to take care of it.

[deleted]

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#198

Post by ansible »

npsimons wrote: post #155
masklinn wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He has a point though… Does he? He "stat[es as] fact" that > There has been no attempt to move the smallest parts of the ecosystem, to provide replacements for base POSIX utilities. which as xwvvvvwx notes is categorically wrong, then points out that rustc can't compile itself on i386, which is relevant… how?

> then points out that rustc can't compile itself on i386, which is relevant… how? I'm actually gobsmacked this is the case. There used to be a saying, only half-joking, that a language that can't host/compile/bootstrap itself is nothing more than a toy. As others have more eloquently pointed out, it shouldn't have to be explained why people who write operating systems and compilers would consider that a no-go.

Eh, 64-bit desktops were becoming common a decade ago. Considering the small minority of developers using a 32-bit machine for development, I don't see that it is worthwhile to spend effort on that.

Note that Rust can (and does) target various 32-bit platforms (ARM and maybe RISC-V, not sure) for cross-compile. Self-hosting on a 32-bit platform is such a minor drawback these days. 64-bit ARM processors are becoming more common these days as well.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#200

Post by vvanders »

stochastic_monk wrote: post #133
reggieband wrote: post #116

I remember I stopped frequenting /r/programming when it became this weird Haskell echo chamber. It was a bubble where a small but vocal faction inside the community seemed to over react to any criticism. They methodically and tirelessly responded to every comment with an endless litany of "facts" showing how Haskell could do anything from os kernels to game programming. They touted every industry mention of Haskell u…

It's become clear to me that a lot of the Rust fanatics don't actually know how C++ works and and Rust is their first low-level language. The ones I'm talking about know enough to make them sound like they know what they're talking about unless you actually know what they're trying and failing to accurately describe. It sounds and seems like a language worthy of more investigation on my part, but I have to agree that…

There are those of us who have been writing C++ for decades and are sick of the footguns and build systems but have never had a viable alternative before.

I don't think anyone is arguing that we should throw everything out, however for all my greenfield stuff Rust has been a welcome breath of fresh air. Yeah, there are some people who are a little too over the top but a large part of the support behind Rust is from those of us who've used it in production and found it to be a fantastic language and ecosystem.

Post reply on HN