3 ms·
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 Fi
by 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 agoAt 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 agoThis 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.