231–240 of 272 posts
As long as rowhammer is still out there, aint none of your memory safe. Fixing rowhammer is the memory safety absolutism I want to hear more about.
ECC memory fixes rowhammer. And random bitflips. Everyone should have ECC memory, but Intel disagrees because they are greedy. My system sometimes detects a few bitflips per day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Focus on debugging your application rather than debugging your programming language knowledge” to me sounds like it is directed primarily at C and C++., it’s a much more direct translation.
It could also apply to Rust though. It's on the complexity scale of C++, not C.
I responded to “clearly an anti-rust statement”, which is a bit of a stretch.
Pizlo is not a memory safety absolutist. His rhetoric towards rust is a tactic specifically designed to draw more attention to him and his project. It is amplified by people who already had a bone to pick with rust and take joy in giving rust folk "a taste of their own medicine," so to speak. Articles like this are taking the bait.
What a weird take. I think the limits of Rust’s memory safety are interesting to discuss, as are the limits of Fil-C’s perf and practicality. It’s best to discuss these things rationally, rather than accusing folks of trying to draw attention
> I think the limits of Rust’s memory safety are interesting to discuss, as are the limits of Fil-C’s perf and practicality.
Notably absent from what you claim to be willing to discuss are the limits of Fil-C's memory safety, or the possibility that it could be less safe than Rust.
What you're doing is well explained here:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some Rust programs also had RCE CVEs.
Some is doing heavy misrepresentation. Latest batch of LLM's Linux had 423 vulnerabilities. Out of which 10 were Rust*. Would you prefer more or less CVEs? But it's like seat belt analogy. It's a helper not a panacea. * Granted Rust isn't in the entire kernel yet. D
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If as a user you're willing to pay these library/application owners and premium to do so, by all means; this is a reasonable demand. But short of a massive campaign to educate and change minds, I can't see the average user caring enough.
My biggest gripe honestly is businesses rather than any particular opensource project, opensource projects can often get away with these issues getting caught by the many eyes looking at them before they ever make it to mainline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Linked lists are cool but they are terrible for cache performance, so their apparently elegant performance characteristics are often illusory. And hybrid data structures which get you the best of both worlds are quite complicated to implement. I think that's why there's a general pressure against using them unless you have a very specific reason (and ideally some measurements) to demonstrate that they are a good opti…
Yeah, I'd blame mainly 2 factors for the continued undue influence of linked lists 1. CS professors teach them. The Programme Lead for our CS course still teaches linked lists as the first data structure in the DSA course. Does this type exist? Sure. Is it a good idea? Almost never. But you wouldn't think so from its prominence in the course materials. 2. The Linux kernel uses a LOT of linked lists. Multi-core atomic…
I'm in the (near) memory safety absolutionist camp. Fil-C is an amazing technology, and we should use it, but we should also recognize its limitations. An as-written JIT or GC can not be compiled with Fil-C because they are inherently memory unsafe.. which means one of the biggest user CVE targets by volune, Google Chrome, not only can not be compiled by Fil-C -- it also can't consume Fil-C compiled libraries. (Chrom…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some is doing heavy misrepresentation. Latest batch of LLM's Linux had 423 vulnerabilities. Out of which 10 were Rust*. Would you prefer more or less CVEs? But it's like seat belt analogy. It's a helper not a panacea. * Granted Rust isn't in the entire kernel yet. D
That sounds like Linux has more vulnerabilities per line of Rust code than line of C code, given the language ratio...