Live data from Hacker News

Elixir is still safe

paraxial.io

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: Elixir is still safe

#31
post #23
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ABS system your car’s brakes could crash — literally — and that would be safe?

Safe means that every operation has well specified semantics. Some languages, notably C and C++, lack this property.

That's not what undefined behavior means.

Re: Elixir is still safe

#32

Deciding which i should use : Elixir or Clojurescript or python or nodejs

That really really depends on what you want to do, can you add a bit more information? Also those choices are not mutually exclusive, you can run Clojurescript on Node.js, but you would probably be better off using normal Clojure.

Re: Elixir is still safe

#33
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

Just so people don’t get the bad idea, message passing is still prone to the general category of race conditions, just not data races (without shared memory).

Though there are runtime tools to detect live/dead locks.

Re: Elixir is still safe

#35
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safety means no undefined behavaior. It does not mean free of bugs, or security issues, or free from crashes. It simply means every operation has well specified semantics.

Where did you get this definition of safety from? I’ve never heard someone define safety to exclude security issues; that doesn’t seem very useful.

Security can kill safety, yes.

Typically you would start with [0] and it's derivations for specific domains.

The core idea is "The fundamental concept is that any safety-related system must work correctly or fail in a predictable (safe) way."

The interesting question is what to do in corner cases you did not specify explicitly. Typically it is still considered "safe" if you don't do what you would have specified in hindsight, but fall into the defined failure reaction. You also try to make security problems take that path.

Checking that the system does what is specified is called "verification" and the domain of functional safety. Checkin that this is what you actually meant (it actually solves the user's problem) is called "validation" and especially for vehicles called SOTIF [1].

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_61508

[1] https://www.iso.org/standard/77490.html

Re: Elixir is still safe

#36
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just don’t see how it’s so flat. Because people like making wild and provocative claims to motivate writing a paper for which the conclusion was already decided. Anyone who has used, I dunno, any of programming languages that are being discussed has a more nuanced take, and isn't spending time trying to force all things into Box A or Box B. Elixir/Erlang has a pleasant concurrency model. It does some things well,…

“What is sending a message to my process and making it crash?!” “My synchronous reply timed out, so why I am I getting a message after the timeout?!” “Why did deleting my build directory fix the compile error?!” “How do I keep my app from crashing when my supervisor crashed too many times in a given timeframe?!” So many adventures to be had.

For the first you can setup a tracer for messages sent and received. Second should not happen from OTP 24.

Fourth is the wrong question to ask: if the failure handling mechanism is invoked too frequently, fix the failures, not the recovery.

Third is definitely my fault. Bug reports are appreciated whenever possible.

But generally speaking, yes, debugging is part of every programming language, and concurrency and distribution will add to the adventure whenever used, to varying degrees depending on the programming language.

Re: Elixir is still safe

#37
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty. But I'd take those trivial issues over a blob of microservices any day of the week. In any case, the answer continues to be "it depends". But people will continue to look for "one weird trick" solutions to every problem.

It's fun an games until you have to debug an Erlang RPC call that is timing out w/o log messages in a blob of Elixir micro services.

On erlang vm (beamvm), you can safely trace in production. It makes tracing and debugging tools in other ecosystems look like they are primitive in comparison.

I think erlang ecosystem has its own warts like any other one but debugging definitely isn't one

Here are a few examples of what you can do in erlang/elixir:

Inspect function calls that match specific argumrnt patterns, which can get pretty detailed. Tag processes by id, future processes under a supervisor, or other criteria, and limit tracing to these. Limit tracing to n occurences. As in automatically disable tracing after it triggered n times.

Typically one combines these and more to identify issues pretty rapidly.

Re: Elixir is still safe

#38

Deciding which i should use : Elixir or Clojurescript or python or nodejs

Weird set of choices. So clojure and elixir can be your hooks into fp community. To a degree they are similar in being dynamic fp langs with macro capabilities. Python and node are more like "common dev platforms" these days. I would first establish if I am looking for job market utility (both elixir and clojure offer great utility, but job market is more problematic). Yet if you are looking to learn and expand your dev horizons elixir or clojure are great options (I do clojure so a bit biased towards it).
Post reply on HN