3 ms·
I was surprised to read in the article that the code quality was good, unless they some how pulled off a major refactor since LibreSSL basically called the code
by petee 5y ago
I was surprised to read in the article that the code quality was good, unless they some how pulled off a major refactor since LibreSSL basically called the code a mess.
If I recall, the claim was that OpenSSL prioritized issues paid for by companies, and the alot was left to rot. I'm curious if your friend saw the same things?
- kreetx 5y agoThere is a difference in when a tool considers code to be of high quality and when humans do.
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y agoI have never gazed upon the code, myself, so only have thirdhand anecdotal information. He didn't speculate as to "why," but he said the project was very buggy, and rather "messy." To be fair, we worked for a company (he was one of my employees) that was anal about Quality, and hard to please. It rubbed off on us.
- IncRnd 5y agoOpenSSL 3.0.0, which is what the article mentions, is a new version that is incompatible with older versions of OpenSSL. its internals operate in a completely different manner. It is a very changed codebase. That being said, I would not say its code quality is good, regardless of whether any tooling reports that.