Elixir is still safe
paraxial.io
Elixir is still safe
1–10 of 38 posts
Re: Elixir is still safe
#2[deleted]
Re: Elixir is still safe
#3[flagged]
Re: Elixir is still safe
#4[flagged]
Well duh, that's what the OG article is about, why the author of this one would need to repeat himself
Re: Elixir is still safe
#5What would normally be the process to debunk a published paper? Simply publishing another paper debunking it in the same journal?
Re: Elixir is still safe
#6[flagged]
Well duh, that's what the OG article is about, why the author of this one would need to repeat himself
The original article didn't disprove the existence of vulnerabilities though. Is "Concurrency is hard and I think this concurrency model is easier" "proof"? Did you read either article?
Re: Elixir is still safe
#7What would normally be the process to debunk a published paper? Simply publishing another paper debunking it in the same journal?
Often journals will accept "letters" in some form or another if the criticism is brief, and do on occasion publish full papers addressing the shortcomings of another.
When that fails, usually one would try another journal or two, and after that it's usually some manner of blog posting and social media.
Re: Elixir is still safe
#8Without stepping on anyone’s toes, I think we can agree that “safety” could be broken down a bit. Memory safety, thread safety, fine… but there’s a whole forest past those trees.
Is it a safety feature to type-check regular expressions using dependent types? Is Python a security vulnerability because the performance can be unpredictable?
I don’t know.
Rust, for that matter, doesn’t protect you from running out of memory from leaking data on the heap — or from running out of stack space because your infinitely recursive function doesn’t halt. Maybe that’s not part of memory safety — but that’s my point.
There’s a whole safety forest out there. Whenever I read an article about safety in software, it seems like a comfy blanket statement. “This is a nice definition which I will live in.”
I just don’t see how it’s so flat.
Re: Elixir is still safe
#9> Practitioner perceptions are formed through personal experience, and not based on empirical evidence
The disagreement here is rooted in the empirical worldview. Empirically, "rarely" and "never" cannot be (reliably) distinguished, and so adherents of this worldview fail to distinguish claims which are meant to distinguish them.
Re: Elixir is still safe
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well duh, that's what the OG article is about, why the author of this one would need to repeat himself
The original article didn't disprove the existence of vulnerabilities though. Is "Concurrency is hard and I think this concurrency model is easier" "proof"? Did you read either article?
From the original "Elixir is Safe" article:
> 3. “Shared nothing” concurrency
> Item 3 is the killer one for safety. Like two people, two processes cannot share memory; they can only communicate by sending each other messages.
This makes impossible an entire class of thread safety issues. "Elixir is Safer" might have been a better phrasing, but you're misrepresenting the contents of the article if you're claiming that it is limited to expounding "concurrency is hard and I think this concurrency model is easier".