2 ms·

> 2. For complicated programs that have been continuously developed and extended for decades, a re-write in a "better" language is not a particularly good idea.

> 2. For complicated programs that have been continuously developed and extended for decades, a re-write in a "better" language is not a particularly good idea. Can you explain the strategy you propose to stop the entire browser industry from getting knocked over at Pwn2Own every year?

jstewartmobile 10y ago
If Mozilla thinks it's a good trade-off to spend the next several years fighting functionality bugs in exchange for better pointer and memory guarantees with Firefox, they are more qualified to make that call than I am. For other types of program that I am familiar with, that is a raw deal. Take vim. I don't have it exposed on the network. I've never had any problems with it. It does not affect me in the slightest if the guys at a Pwn2Own can contrive some convoluted attack against it. The functionality is more important than the security is for my usage case. I would rather it just keep working than have it be undefeated at Pwn2Own.
- pcwalton 10y ago
  At this point I think you're making an argument about software evolution more than programming languages. "Just keeping it working" is fine for software like Vim, which has a natural monopoly on the small niche of longtime programmers who have memorized the keystrokes and like it the way it is. (I am not insulting Vim users: I am one of them!) It does not work for software like browsers in a deeply competitive market, which have to cater to a large audience of hundreds of millions who constantly demand increased stability, security, and performance.
  - jstewartmobile 10y ago
    This thread has gotten so unwieldy that I now have more arguments than I started with! ;-) But yeah, evolution over revolution. Perhaps that could be a fun challenge. Take some creaky old thing, have team A re-do it in Rust, have team B do an OpenBSD-style hackathon on it in its native language, let the QA guys and the hackers loose on it, and see which one fares better.

jstewartmobile 10y ago

If Mozilla thinks it's a good trade-off to spend the next several years fighting functionality bugs in exchange for better pointer and memory guarantees with Firefox, they are more qualified to make that call than I am. For other types of program that I am familiar with, that is a raw deal. Take vim. I don't have it exposed on the network. I've never had any problems with it. It does not affect me in the slightest if the guys at a Pwn2Own can contrive some convoluted attack against it. The functionality is more important than the security is for my usage case. I would rather it just keep working than have it be undefeated at Pwn2Own.

pcwalton 10y ago
At this point I think you're making an argument about software evolution more than programming languages. "Just keeping it working" is fine for software like Vim, which has a natural monopoly on the small niche of longtime programmers who have memorized the keystrokes and like it the way it is. (I am not insulting Vim users: I am one of them!) It does not work for software like browsers in a deeply competitive market, which have to cater to a large audience of hundreds of millions who constantly demand increased stability, security, and performance.
- jstewartmobile 10y ago
  This thread has gotten so unwieldy that I now have more arguments than I started with! ;-) But yeah, evolution over revolution. Perhaps that could be a fun challenge. Take some creaky old thing, have team A re-do it in Rust, have team B do an OpenBSD-style hackathon on it in its native language, let the QA guys and the hackers loose on it, and see which one fares better.