3 ms·

Author here. The fact that I _could have had_ a cavalier attitude towards C memory safety, but didn't, shows (I believe) just how much the Cryptography authors

Author here. The fact that I _could have had_ a cavalier attitude towards C memory safety, but didn't, shows (I believe) just how much the Cryptography authors fell short because _they were writing crypto_. If anything, they should have surpassed the amount of due diligence that I did on bc, but they didn't.

kstenerud 6y ago
It's easy to look back in hindsight and take potshots based on everything someone did wrong. There's not a project out there where you couldn't do this. I took a quick look over the thread, and TBH I find the authors' reasons and explanations compelling, logical, and respectful (their FAQ, the fact that they polled the users almost a year ago, the fact that they announced their intentions in advance, and how to deal with the impending changes). I suggest you re-think your approach; this won't reflect well.
- ghoward 6y ago
  Your arguments are fair. However, can you tell me more what you mean about rethinking my approach? I am not sure what approach you are referring to.
  - kstenerud 6y ago
    I mean escalating a minor dust-up into a blog post about their wrongs, and then further pushing it in a worldwide forum (HN). I don't mean to be rude, but as a disinterested third party, the optics of all of this and your handling of a disagreement reflect badly upon you. At some point in the future after you've cooled off, you'll probably delete the post (but better sooner than later!)
    - ghoward 6y ago
      I actually don't see what you said as being rude, just honest, and I appreciate that. I actually let myself cool down before I wrote the post. I was going to write the post right after I saw the GitHub issue, but I sat on it for awhile, thinking through my thoughts. It's unfortunate that such a dust-up (which wasn't minor, by the way; it got published in LWN, see https://lwn.net/Articles/845535/ https://lwn.net/Articles/845535/) was a perfect way to make arguments against Rust that I have wanted to make. And I wanted to make them because if Rust can be as portable as C, I would LOVE that!

kstenerud 6y ago

It's easy to look back in hindsight and take potshots based on everything someone did wrong. There's not a project out there where you couldn't do this. I took a quick look over the thread, and TBH I find the authors' reasons and explanations compelling, logical, and respectful (their FAQ, the fact that they polled the users almost a year ago, the fact that they announced their intentions in advance, and how to deal with the impending changes). I suggest you re-think your approach; this won't reflect well.

ghoward 6y ago
Your arguments are fair. However, can you tell me more what you mean about rethinking my approach? I am not sure what approach you are referring to.
- kstenerud 6y ago
  I mean escalating a minor dust-up into a blog post about their wrongs, and then further pushing it in a worldwide forum (HN). I don't mean to be rude, but as a disinterested third party, the optics of all of this and your handling of a disagreement reflect badly upon you. At some point in the future after you've cooled off, you'll probably delete the post (but better sooner than later!)
  - ghoward 6y ago
    I actually don't see what you said as being rude, just honest, and I appreciate that. I actually let myself cool down before I wrote the post. I was going to write the post right after I saw the GitHub issue, but I sat on it for awhile, thinking through my thoughts. It's unfortunate that such a dust-up (which wasn't minor, by the way; it got published in LWN, see https://lwn.net/Articles/845535/ https://lwn.net/Articles/845535/) was a perfect way to make arguments against Rust that I have wanted to make. And I wanted to make them because if Rust can be as portable as C, I would LOVE that!