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

251–260 of 344 posts

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#251

Post by rrix2 »

cat199 wrote: post #158
masklinn wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He's talking specifically about OpenBSD base. No, he is very explicitly saying that > There has been no attempt […] provide replacements for base POSIX utilities. Which once again is categorically false, a github repository purporting to do exactly that has been provided. > i386 is relevant because OpenBSD supports i386. i386 is supported, the issue is compiling the compiler on i386 .

> i386 is supported, the issue is compiling the compiler on i386. which is required for the system to be self hosting seriously - what is being said is this: " oh hey lets throw away the functional and perfectly good entire base set of utilities for this 1/2 complete project on github using a language that doesn't even natively build on all of our supported platforms and wouldn't even remove the need for a C complile…

> every few days (hours?) some noobish person desides to ask some fantasy question about whatever topic of interest they are noobing about on openbsd (and other OS) discussion lists, and then gets whiny when they are being called out for being 'green' about life itself. this is another of those cases, and I have no idea why it got crossposted here or upvoted.

this sort of attitude is astoundingly hostile and toxic for an open source community to hold.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#252

Post by sctb »

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #195
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ap…

We've asked you before not to engage in personal attacks like this. Please stop.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#253

Post by axlprose »

masklinn wrote: post #137
_jal wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's talking specifically about OpenBSD base. Unless you can point to a rust binary in OpenBSD that Theo forgot about, he's not wrong. i386 is relevant because OpenBSD supports i386.

> He's talking specifically about OpenBSD base. No, he is very explicitly saying that > There has been no attempt […] provide replacements for base POSIX utilities. Which once again is categorically false, a github repository purporting to do exactly that has been provided. > i386 is relevant because OpenBSD supports i386. i386 is supported, the issue is compiling the compiler on i386 .

> There has been no attempt to move the smallest parts of the ECOSYSTEM to provide replacements for base POSIX utilities.

You deliberately cut out the part which states he's talking about the ecosystem of OpenBSD, in an OpenBSD mailing list. That is an extremely disingenuous and uncharitable cherry-picked interpretation. He was categorically talking about efforts to port OpenBSD utilities to such a language and merge them into the project (i.e. the OpenBSD ecosystem). What you're suggesting he said is just plain FUD.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#254

Post by oscargrouch »

vvanders wrote: post #200
stochastic_monk wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> 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.

If you can write things from scratch in a clear room fashion, perhaps.

C++ is very good, when you need to integrate a lot of 'low-level' libraries (that are alredy in C or C++) together in a meaninful way, like for instance, browsers do.

Like the capacity to 'talk' with FFMPEG, levelDB, linux, etc.. in a complete native fashion basically.

I think in that regard Rust is sort of late to the party, and will find a wall hard to beat down, once the adoption rate get some maturity.

If you are already a experienced C++ dev, compared to modern C++, Rust has very little to offer. Of course is more modern, (maybe) more ergonomic?

But little things like package manager or explicit lifetime management by itself wont cut it.. at least not for people with large codebases already in C++.

When you are younger, programming languages look like that secret ingredient that will turn whatever you do into a magical tool.. But experience tells you that nothing beats hard work or that you should understand the strenght and weakness of each language, and know when and how to use it.

So for the problem domains where C++ are being used, it will get hard to beat, because a lot of great software are already there, and can be integrated in a native fashion, with whatever you do on top of it.

And by the way, modern C++ is already secure enough, making some selling points for Rust, a little bit of cosmetic right now.

If you throw a language like Swift into the equation.. particularly i think they(C++ and Swift) form a lovely and unbeatable couple.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#255

Post by HumanDrivenDev »

teilo wrote: post #244
HumanDrivenDev wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flipside of that is - I'm an adult, I want to talk to people who can handle critiques and debate without getting unduly upset. Disagreement != trolling.

That's not a flipside. That's a restatement of my criticism of these subreddits. There is a difference between constructive criticism and/or correction (which I am all for), and belittling, demeaning, insulting, and cursing at people.

There is a difference between constructive criticism and/or correction (which I am all for), and belittling, demeaning, insulting, and cursing at people.

IME a lot of thin skinned people on the internet always view the former as the latter. It's equally as tiresome.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#256

Post by dang »

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #217
sli wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. So an actively hostile comment in response to an opinionated one is somehow better and not measurably worse? You could just as easily have a discussion on why they think it objectively sucks, and you both may learn something from it.

I actually outlined why I thought they were wrong, and shut your mouth is clearly attached to not making subjective statements about other people's belongings (which, I absolutely stand by as inappropriate) -- so yes, an angry but on-point comment is better than just throwing out "lolsux" uselessly, or in the case above, based on wrong information.

If you keep posting like that, or like this for that matter, we will ban you. Please clean up your act.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#257

Post by empath75 »

rtpg wrote: post #10
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.

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.

It’s not a trite point for BSD but if those are the kinds of objections holding back adoption by Linux and bsd, then I think the end result will just be a new Rust-first operating system.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#258

Post by vvanders »

rufius wrote: post #247
Avshalom wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(well I mean there has been Ada* for ages) *or fortran or pascal

The tool chain there is still quite irritating and “old school”. At least for me, part of the attraction of Rust is the development tools around the language itself (e.g. cargo).

Yeah, in no particular order here's what I love about cargo:

  Seamless cross-compile. I've done a ton of cross-compile projects, cargo/rustup is the best by far.

  One-line dependency import. Saves *hours* setting up build chains.

  First-class win32 support. Hard to stress how rare and awesome this is coming from a gamedev background.

  Integrated testing. So nice just to have.

  Integrated benchmarking, ditto above.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#259

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

sctb wrote: post #252
SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ap…

We've asked you before not to engage in personal attacks like this. Please stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Could you tell me what personal attack that would be?

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#260

Post by vvanders »

oscargrouch wrote: post #254
vvanders wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> 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. If you can write things from scratch in a clear room fashion, perhaps. C++ is very good, when you need to integrate a lot of 'low-level' libraries (that are alredy in C or C++) together in a meaninful way, like for instance, browsers do. Like the capacity to 'talk' wi…

I mean this in the most non-confrontational way: have you actually used/looked at Rust?

The reason I ask is just about every item you laid out I've had the opposite experience.

Talking with C/C++ is trivial with bindgen and clang. Embedding in C++ is likewise straightforward. I mean Firefox is one of the larger C++ codebases out there. The package manager is great and makes dropping in things much less painful.

On the security front I don't think you can compare the two, I can easily think of things like iterator invalidation that C++ just doesn't handle well.

The last big project I did in Rust ran on 6 different targets(x68 win32/linux/osx, android armv7/x86, wasm) targeting 3 different rendering stacks(OpenGL, HTML Canvas, Android Views) integrated deeply with a Lua interpreter. Having done cross-platform stuff like this in the past it was a build/toolchain nightmare. With Rust everything was straightforward and pretty darn painless.

Post reply on HN