4 ms·
> and that the OpenSSL guys were idiots for allowing Heartbleed This is the most baffling part for me. I'm yet to figure out who these mythical non-idiots are
by pdpi 5y ago
> and that the OpenSSL guys were idiots for allowing Heartbleed
This is the most baffling part for me. I'm yet to figure out who these mythical non-idiots are that would not have fallen for any of the pitfalls that have led to exploits in the last several decades.
- stackbutterflow 5y agoA few years ago I've read a comment on reddit of someone saying that they don't write tests because they don't write bug.
- JoeyJoJoJr 5y agoReminds me of a comment where someone said they don’t need static type checking because they have never have type related bugs.
- mindslight 5y agoI know a few of them. They're robots. For example https://www.call-cc.org/ https://www.call-cc.org/ Transformation according to logical invariants is basically the goal of compilation. Eschewing compilation creates a treadmill whereby a programmer thinks they're getting a lot done because they're mechanistically spitting out a large volume of code, but really they're acting as an imperfect compiler. See also the large crowd of people writing JVM assembly (aka "Java"), as opposed to using higher level languages like Clojure or Scala. Yes JVM is leaps and bounds ahead of C, just like C is leaps and bounds ahead of machine assembler. But unless you're often writing things that existing compilers cannot, then personally standing in for a compiler is mostly just a way of introducing bugs.
- pdimitar 5y agoVery well put! Thank you, I am stealing some of your quotes. :)
- pdimitar 5y agoSame with me. Worst part is, I actually worked with some of these smug insufferable nerds. Nothing on this Earth can convince them that they can make a mistake. Literally worst possible people to have as colleagues. So glad I don't work with them anymore.
- user-the-name 5y agoMe. It's me.