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

Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data structures

ayende.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 272 posts

Re: Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data structures

#151

Post by Starlevel001 »

netr0ute wrote: post #135
rowanG077 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly memory unsafe languages shouldn't be used with exception of very few corner cases. It's the same reason why we no longer allow cars without seatbelts. You don't go around saying that seatbelts shouldn't be mandatory because you don't need them.

What's with this obsession about what other people do? You don't have to use a memory unsafe language, but others might.

All the while I have to use broken, unsafe software on a day to day basis I reserve the right to complain about things that make programs broken and unsafe

Re: Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data structures

#152

Post by rowanG077 »

netr0ute wrote: post #135
rowanG077 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly memory unsafe languages shouldn't be used with exception of very few corner cases. It's the same reason why we no longer allow cars without seatbelts. You don't go around saying that seatbelts shouldn't be mandatory because you don't need them.

What's with this obsession about what other people do? You don't have to use a memory unsafe language, but others might.

Because software is generally written so that people use it. Memory unsafe languages have proven it's impossible to write secure software in, even by the best of the best developers. That's why I made the comparison with seatbelts. If you want to drive your car on public roads(deliver production software to users) you are not allowed to use memory unsafe languages(you must use a seatbelt). If you just make software for yourself that you don't release to the public no one will care if you write it in C or whatever.

It has nothing to do with anything you do. It has everything to do with the impact it has on everyone but yourself.

Re: Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data structures

#153

Post by Shish2k »

sounds wrote: post #149
jmmv wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do people spend so much energy shooting down a language nobody uses? If you don’t like it you don’t have to use it. Because this language isn't made by a nobody. It's made by a popular person with a following, so the language _will_ get used by a non-insignificant number of people. And those people _will_ (re)implement all the things that you want a language to have (database connections, networking libraries,…

But why be the one to shoot it down? If the industry makes mistakes, that's not news.

Imagine if we’d had the opportunity to complain about PHP or JS back in their early days, and had the opportunity to fix some of their awful decisions _before_ they became practically set in stone?

Re: Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data structures

#154

Post by BaculumMeumEst »

jmmv wrote: post #128
socialdemocrat wrote: post #100

Why do people spend so much energy shooting down a language nobody uses? If you don’t like it you don’t have to use it. I would hate to be the creator of Hare and get so much crap for simply daring to exist. He is making a language he likes and wants to use. There are probably some people who like it and find it useful. Good for them! A lot of us have dreams of building our own language. He is following his passions…

> Why do people spend so much energy shooting down a language nobody uses? If you don’t like it you don’t have to use it. Because this language isn't made by a nobody. It's made by a popular person with a following, so the language _will_ get used by a non-insignificant number of people. And those people _will_ (re)implement all the things that you want a language to have (database connections, networking libraries,…

> And those people _will_ (re)implement all the things that you want a language to have (database connections, networking libraries, (de)serialization libraries, etc.). And these things, which can be performance/security-critical, will be impacted by the issues people are pointing out.

This language is only available on platforms where you are free to choose whatever software you want. If you think a Hare program is insecure, don't use it.

Re: Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data structures

#155

Post by steaminghams »

mumblemumble wrote: post #75
capableweb wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hare doesn't say "we need no package manager" but instead "we don't need a new package manager, use the one your OS provides", at least from how I understand it.

That strikes me as another C-ism that didn't deserve to be carried forward into a 21st century language. There's a reason we call it "dependency hell" and not "happy fun fussing with dependency version conflicts among projects that are completely unrelated except that you happen to be using the same computer to work on them time."

The state of the art in package management could be considered Nix and Guix and those are both operating system level package managers and thats why they are better than npm or pypi or cargo, as the aforementioned language specific package managers _dont_ handle dependency hell as native dependencies exist. they all have the same problem as 'they work on my computer' and also encourage this ecosystem of thousands of micropackages, which in a thread so focused on security seems a little ironic given there is no way to guarantee all of those dependencies are made by good actors without a lot of vetting that just is not happening.

Re: Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data structures

#156

Post by throw10920 »

Starlevel001 wrote: post #151
netr0ute wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's with this obsession about what other people do? You don't have to use a memory unsafe language, but others might.

All the while I have to use broken, unsafe software on a day to day basis I reserve the right to complain about things that make programs broken and unsafe

The vast majority of software that I use on a daily basis is broken because of logic errors and/or performance problems, not crashes due to memory unsafety. The former has nothing to do with memory safety, and the latter isn't solvable at all by programming language design.

I'm not saying that memory unsafety isn't a problem, but if you really want to make software better, you should address the biggest problems first.

Re: Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data structures

#157

Post by throw10920 »

capableweb wrote: post #124
jolux wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don’t need more memory-unsafe languages with no generics and no functional programming. We just don’t. If it were a toy project for learning and pedagogical purposes that’s one thing but for code that’s supposed to be used in production it’s useless.

You sure speak surely about "us" like there is just one group of programmers out there. Some people love JavaScript, some people love C. Some people only use programming languages, some create new ones. Live and let live, don't tell others what they need.

Let me quote the part of the comment that you didn't read:

> but for code that’s supposed to be used in production it’s useless

This isn't about doing what you love - it's about engineering a product, a product that needs to have certain safety, security, and stability guarantees. That's the context of this conversation, and for that purpose, Hare isn't suitable.

Re: Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data structures

#158

Post by throwaway17_17 »

Shish2k wrote: post #153
sounds wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why be the one to shoot it down? If the industry makes mistakes, that's not news.

Imagine if we’d had the opportunity to complain about PHP or JS back in their early days, and had the opportunity to fix some of their awful decisions _before_ they became practically set in stone?

There is a distinct difference between PHP, JS and Hare. Hare is being developed and designed with a particular point of view by a developer and early adopters who are passionately supportive of that POV. PHP and JS were both thrown together with minimal direction and to achieve specific goals in as fast a time as possible (if I am remembering both languages begins correctly). It could be possible that another language in the position of JS and PHP at its inception might be amenable to deep and fundamental changes; however, I do not think Hare fits this scenario.

If Drew and Co want to make Hare the way it is, awesome! If you don’t want to use share and prefer something else, great!

Re: Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data structures

#159

Post by netr0ute »

jolux wrote: post #141
netr0ute wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's with this obsession about what other people do? You don't have to use a memory unsafe language, but others might.

I’m allowed to have opinions about what tools should be used for what. I think it’s fair to say you shouldn’t write a production HTTP service in assembly, for example.

The problem with this is that you're now the Ministry Of Truth of programming tools.

Re: Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data structures

#160

Post by netr0ute »

tonyg wrote: post #143
netr0ute wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's with this obsession about what other people do? You don't have to use a memory unsafe language, but others might.

A person's actions sometimes have effects on other people. Such as not wearing a mask, for example. Or writing some piece of obscure but critical infrastructure with a memory vulnerability that causes all someone's precious apes to be stolen.

> Such as not wearing a mask, for example.

That's pretty rich

Post reply on HN