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

The Rune Programming Language

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 203 posts

Re: The Rune Programming Language

#61

Post by aredox »

tmtvl wrote: post #28
FreeFull wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There already was a GO programming language before Google decided to use the name, too.

Ah, so they're repeat offenders. How's it go again? Cache invalidation, naming tconcurrencyhings, , and off-by-one errors?

Google: - leader in AI and text generation - unable to find or create original names for langs

Re: The Rune Programming Language

#62

Post by TylerE »

wolfwyrd wrote: post #22
WhiteBlueSkies wrote: post #13

Can someone explain how this works: "Assume the attacker can tell how long it takes for mac == computedMac to run. If the first byte of an attacker-chosen mac is wrong for the attacker-chosen message, the loop terminates after just one comparison. With 256 attempts, the attacker can find the first byte of the expected MAC for the attacker-controlled message. Repeating this process, the attacker can forge an entire MA…

This is a timing attack or timing oracle. Lets assume a mac represented in an array of 32 bytes. If we had a pseudocode method like: byte [32] (actualMac, expectedMac) for int x = 0..31 if (actualMac[x] != expectedMac[x]) return false; fi end return true; We return false as soon as we hit an invalid byte in our calculated mac. If the time taken to execute one iteration of the loop is Y and the attacker is able to tim…

Don’t really buy it. Seems to be both “spherical cow optimistic assumptions” and “anyone who could seriously think about pulling this off has nation-state level resources and already 0wnz you and/or already has the rubber hose at hand"

Re: The Rune Programming Language

#63

Post by telmo »

TylerE wrote: post #57
dvirsky wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't an official Google project, the contributions seem mostly from one person, so probably someone doing this as a 20% project. Carbon OTOH has a team working on it AFAIK.

And it’s not new, either. First commits to the repo are well over a year old.

That's pretty new for a programming language.

Re: The Rune Programming Language

#64

Post by laumars »

subtra3t wrote: post #25
FreeFull wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There already was a GO programming language before Google decided to use the name, too.

That doesn't justify them choosing an already chosen name now, does it?

I didn’t read the GPs comment as a justification.

Re: The Rune Programming Language

#66

Post by namkt »

ithkuil wrote: post #34
throwawaybutwhy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

_without any business commitments_ - not to sound trite, but when is the last time Google stood by its commitments?

Google still sells ads, doesn't it?

Didn't they originally claim to never show ads in search given that it is in direct opposition to search results quality? Back in the days when Pagerank was hot.

Re: The Rune Programming Language

#67

Post by shit_game »

aredox wrote: post #61
tmtvl wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, so they're repeat offenders. How's it go again? Cache invalidation, naming tconcurrencyhings, , and off-by-one errors?

Google: - leader in AI and text generation - unable to find or create original names for langs

Given how poor their search engine performs as of late, it's no surprise they can't seem to be original; they obviously can't find anything that already exists.

Re: The Rune Programming Language

#68

Post by gl-prod »

aredox wrote: post #61
tmtvl wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, so they're repeat offenders. How's it go again? Cache invalidation, naming tconcurrencyhings, , and off-by-one errors?

Google: - leader in AI and text generation - unable to find or create original names for langs

Hey listen, namin things is really hard

Re: The Rune Programming Language

#69

Post by xiaq »

vore wrote: post #30
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #2

> This is not an officially supported Google product. Then why is it under github.com/google ?

I believe Google has a practice where all projects that are copyright assigned to them are under github.com/google: https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/releasing

It's not a hard requirement, but they do make you jump through extra hoops to put them elsewhere.

Re: The Rune Programming Language

#70

Post by tgv »

chakkepolja wrote: post #48

Interestingly the parser is generated using flex and bison, which I thought was rare these days.

If you want accurate error messages, you might want to write the parser by hand. If you want to make changing the grammar easy, and have a reliable, correct parser, you use a parser generator. Some have better error message than bison.
Post reply on HN