3 ms·

> I believe that Blow values ease-of-prototyping more than safety That's not entirely accurate. Based on his talks, he likes frictionless development over jump

> I believe that Blow values ease-of-prototyping more than safety That's not entirely accurate. Based on his talks, he likes frictionless development over jumping through hoops that may or may not result in a safer application. Considering how many lines of code game programmers pump out on a daily basis, even small pain points can cause huge delays over a 2+ year dev cycle. Lines of code per day is a larger concern than safety for most games.

pcwalton 11y ago
> Based on his talks, he likes frictionless development over jumping through hoops that may or may not result in a safer application. I think it's clear that using Rust will result in a safer application per unit of developer time compared to a non-memory-safe language. But I'm certainly willing to believe that not everyone cares about having a memory-safe application.
- PopeOfNope 11y ago
  It's not clear to me. Give me some proof and I'll change my mind. A scientific study, a case study, a statistical analysis, anything other than theory. Haskell's strict typing system and theoretically correctness was supposed to lead to better code as well. I used xmonad for a few years. It crashes just as much as any other window manager.
  - pcwalton 11y ago
    The number of memory safety problems in memory-safe languages is much, much lower than in non-memory safe ones. Look at the classes of vulnerabilities in, say, Ruby programs and compare them to the number of memory safety-related security vulnerabilities in, for example, Firefox. I have actually analyzed this and memory-safety-related problems in Firefox are the majority of critical security vulnerabilities.
    - PopeOfNope 11y ago
      The number of memory safety problems in memory-safe languages is much, much lower than in non-memory safe ones Citation? I have actually analyzed this and memory-safety-related problems in Firefox are the majority of critical security vulnerabilities. Cool. That means you can provide actual numbers and statistics... right?

pcwalton 11y ago

> Based on his talks, he likes frictionless development over jumping through hoops that may or may not result in a safer application. I think it's clear that using Rust will result in a safer application per unit of developer time compared to a non-memory-safe language. But I'm certainly willing to believe that not everyone cares about having a memory-safe application.

PopeOfNope 11y ago
It's not clear to me. Give me some proof and I'll change my mind. A scientific study, a case study, a statistical analysis, anything other than theory. Haskell's strict typing system and theoretically correctness was supposed to lead to better code as well. I used xmonad for a few years. It crashes just as much as any other window manager.
- pcwalton 11y ago
  The number of memory safety problems in memory-safe languages is much, much lower than in non-memory safe ones. Look at the classes of vulnerabilities in, say, Ruby programs and compare them to the number of memory safety-related security vulnerabilities in, for example, Firefox. I have actually analyzed this and memory-safety-related problems in Firefox are the majority of critical security vulnerabilities.
  - PopeOfNope 11y ago
    The number of memory safety problems in memory-safe languages is much, much lower than in non-memory safe ones Citation? I have actually analyzed this and memory-safety-related problems in Firefox are the majority of critical security vulnerabilities. Cool. That means you can provide actual numbers and statistics... right?