4 ms·

The idiopathic priapism manifested by Rusties is pretty much identical to the enthusiasm every junior developers seems to show for rewriting everything. Toy exa

by bregma 5y ago

The idiopathic priapism manifested by Rusties is pretty much identical to the enthusiasm every junior developers seems to show for rewriting everything. Toy examples, software that hasn't yet had contact with production, it's all just so easy. Then comes shifting and unclear requirements, change orders, prioritizations, schedules, resource constraints, career changes, cowboys and petty dictators, and next thing you know your mature C-based code mess is replaced with a less mature Rust-based code mess and the few technical edge cases it was designed to avoid haven't solved any of the big important problems in software development.

shakow 5y ago
According to your comment, there's reasonably no reason to replace our old asm/fortran codebases with better, more modern alternatives. Well, science goes forward one burial at a time, same goes for IT I guess.
- bregma 5y ago
  Your equivalence of "newer" and "better" lacks substance.
  - shakow 5y ago
    Says the guy talking about “idiopathic priapism” when referring to a language's adepts.
xvector 5y ago
Writing secure C code is a fool's errand. The sheer volume of C code and the vulnerabilities therein is perhaps the biggest obstacle to computer security today. I don't care if it's Rust or some other language, but it has been clear for some time that C needs to go.
- scoutt 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure that if you compare total "lines of code written in C/C++" or "projects written in C/C++" versus "vulnerabilities found" you'd be surprised of the (small) result. See. Not all code is "vulnerable", connected to the net or facing a user. But let's leave outside of the count every other project that is not a Triple-A videogame written in C/C++. That amount of projects alone probably would be larger than the quantity of "big" projects that would be written in Rust in the next 10 years. And they are not all "packed with vulnerabilities", or at least, nothing that's big enough to be read here on HN.

by bregma 5y ago

shakow 5y ago

According to your comment, there's reasonably no reason to replace our old asm/fortran codebases with better, more modern alternatives. Well, science goes forward one burial at a time, same goes for IT I guess.

bregma 5y ago
Your equivalence of "newer" and "better" lacks substance.
- shakow 5y ago
  Says the guy talking about “idiopathic priapism” when referring to a language's adepts.

xvector 5y ago

Writing secure C code is a fool's errand. The sheer volume of C code and the vulnerabilities therein is perhaps the biggest obstacle to computer security today. I don't care if it's Rust or some other language, but it has been clear for some time that C needs to go.

scoutt 5y ago
I'm pretty sure that if you compare total "lines of code written in C/C++" or "projects written in C/C++" versus "vulnerabilities found" you'd be surprised of the (small) result. See. Not all code is "vulnerable", connected to the net or facing a user. But let's leave outside of the count every other project that is not a Triple-A videogame written in C/C++. That amount of projects alone probably would be larger than the quantity of "big" projects that would be written in Rust in the next 10 years. And they are not all "packed with vulnerabilities", or at least, nothing that's big enough to be read here on HN.