4 ms·

What's with this obsession about what other people do? You don't have to use a memory unsafe language, but others might.

jolux 4y ago
I’m allowed to have opinions about what tools should be used for what. I think it’s fair to say you shouldn’t write a production HTTP service in assembly, for example.
- netr0ute 4y ago
  The problem with this is that you're now the Ministry Of Truth of programming tools.
  - jolux 4y ago
    You're allowed to disagree with me. I don't claim to be the ultimate authority and I have no power to enforce my opinions. If I were your tech lead and you wanted to use Hare for something I would probably say no but we could have a discussion about it and you might convince me otherwise. But that's not the context here. This is a programming forum, so I will speak my mind.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - staticassertion 4y ago
    Doesn't even make sense. The Ministry of Truth is tasked with rewriting the past to match the present.
  - avgcorrection 4y ago
    We all have opinions. The 1984 reference is unhinged.
tonyg 4y ago
A person's actions sometimes have effects on other people. Such as not wearing a mask, for example. Or writing some piece of obscure but critical infrastructure with a memory vulnerability that causes all someone's precious apes to be stolen.
- netr0ute 4y ago
  > Such as not wearing a mask, for example. That's pretty rich
  - tonyg 4y ago
    How so? I'm sure you take my point: that by indulging selfish wants, we can harm others. Private situations, do what you like; shared or social contexts, not so much.
    - netr0ute 4y ago
      Masks don't even work for many of the things people want them to work for.
      - tonyg 4y ago
        Oh, hey! That makes them an even more perfect analogy. They help, massively, protecting others by removing many forms of transmission; but they don't prevent all transmission. Likewise, memory safety helps, massively, protecting others by removing many forms of security vulnerability; but it doesn't prevent all security vulnerability. And, crucially, not to get too far distracted from the original point: both are things we try to make use of where we can, not for ourselves, but for others and for the health of our overall communities. To really spell it out in words of one syllable: that's why people care about whether other people use memory safe languages.
Starlevel001 4y ago
All the while I have to use broken, unsafe software on a day to day basis I reserve the right to complain about things that make programs broken and unsafe
- throw10920 4y ago
  The vast majority of software that I use on a daily basis is broken because of logic errors and/or performance problems, not crashes due to memory unsafety. The former has nothing to do with memory safety, and the latter isn't solvable at all by programming language design. I'm not saying that memory unsafety isn't a problem, but if you really want to make software better, you should address the biggest problems first.
rowanG077 4y ago
Because software is generally written so that people use it. Memory unsafe languages have proven it's impossible to write secure software in, even by the best of the best developers. That's why I made the comparison with seatbelts. If you want to drive your car on public roads(deliver production software to users) you are not allowed to use memory unsafe languages(you must use a seatbelt). If you just make software for yourself that you don't release to the public no one will care if you write it in C or whatever. It has nothing to do with anything you do. It has everything to do with the impact it has on everyone but yourself.
- flyingfences 4y ago
  I can assure you, the automotive industry uses more C/C++ than you've ever seen. C is used precisely because it's a mature and verifiable language.
  - rowanG077 4y ago
    I'm not sure what your point is. I didn't claim memory unsafe languages aren't used, they obviously are. C is in fact not an easy language to verify. There have gone trillions of dollars into that and it's still not solved. You can't verify C. You might be able to verify a subset of C. But if you are in any position to choose any other language you should run, run, run quickly and far away from C.
    - flyingfences 4y ago
      My point is that your metaphor about "not [being] allowed to use memory unsafe languages" to build a car is completely backwards -- safety-critical embedded systems use C to avoid the abstractions introduced by higher-level languages.
      - rowanG077 4y ago
        It's not backwards. C is used out of necessity not because it's such a great language. Safety-critical embedded systems use C because they have to. Not because it's nice. Claiming they do because C is such a great language to write safety-critical software in is a special kind of Stockholm syndrome.
staticassertion 4y ago
> You don't have to use a memory unsafe language, but others might. And we're telling them they shouldn't.
pjmlp 4y ago
I personly don't, yet they land on hardware devices and servers I am not asked about, and have an impact on my digitial life.

jolux 4y ago

I’m allowed to have opinions about what tools should be used for what. I think it’s fair to say you shouldn’t write a production HTTP service in assembly, for example.

netr0ute 4y ago
The problem with this is that you're now the Ministry Of Truth of programming tools.
- jolux 4y ago
  You're allowed to disagree with me. I don't claim to be the ultimate authority and I have no power to enforce my opinions. If I were your tech lead and you wanted to use Hare for something I would probably say no but we could have a discussion about it and you might convince me otherwise. But that's not the context here. This is a programming forum, so I will speak my mind.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- staticassertion 4y ago
  Doesn't even make sense. The Ministry of Truth is tasked with rewriting the past to match the present.
- avgcorrection 4y ago
  We all have opinions. The 1984 reference is unhinged.

tonyg 4y ago

A person's actions sometimes have effects on other people. Such as not wearing a mask, for example. Or writing some piece of obscure but critical infrastructure with a memory vulnerability that causes all someone's precious apes to be stolen.

netr0ute 4y ago
> Such as not wearing a mask, for example. That's pretty rich
- tonyg 4y ago
  How so? I'm sure you take my point: that by indulging selfish wants, we can harm others. Private situations, do what you like; shared or social contexts, not so much.
  - netr0ute 4y ago
    Masks don't even work for many of the things people want them to work for.
    - tonyg 4y ago
      Oh, hey! That makes them an even more perfect analogy. They help, massively, protecting others by removing many forms of transmission; but they don't prevent all transmission. Likewise, memory safety helps, massively, protecting others by removing many forms of security vulnerability; but it doesn't prevent all security vulnerability. And, crucially, not to get too far distracted from the original point: both are things we try to make use of where we can, not for ourselves, but for others and for the health of our overall communities. To really spell it out in words of one syllable: that's why people care about whether other people use memory safe languages.

Starlevel001 4y ago

All the while I have to use broken, unsafe software on a day to day basis I reserve the right to complain about things that make programs broken and unsafe

throw10920 4y ago
The vast majority of software that I use on a daily basis is broken because of logic errors and/or performance problems, not crashes due to memory unsafety. The former has nothing to do with memory safety, and the latter isn't solvable at all by programming language design. I'm not saying that memory unsafety isn't a problem, but if you really want to make software better, you should address the biggest problems first.

rowanG077 4y ago

Because software is generally written so that people use it. Memory unsafe languages have proven it's impossible to write secure software in, even by the best of the best developers. That's why I made the comparison with seatbelts. If you want to drive your car on public roads(deliver production software to users) you are not allowed to use memory unsafe languages(you must use a seatbelt). If you just make software for yourself that you don't release to the public no one will care if you write it in C or whatever. It has nothing to do with anything you do. It has everything to do with the impact it has on everyone but yourself.

flyingfences 4y ago
I can assure you, the automotive industry uses more C/C++ than you've ever seen. C is used precisely because it's a mature and verifiable language.
- rowanG077 4y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is. I didn't claim memory unsafe languages aren't used, they obviously are. C is in fact not an easy language to verify. There have gone trillions of dollars into that and it's still not solved. You can't verify C. You might be able to verify a subset of C. But if you are in any position to choose any other language you should run, run, run quickly and far away from C.
  - flyingfences 4y ago
    My point is that your metaphor about "not [being] allowed to use memory unsafe languages" to build a car is completely backwards -- safety-critical embedded systems use C to avoid the abstractions introduced by higher-level languages.
    - rowanG077 4y ago
      It's not backwards. C is used out of necessity not because it's such a great language. Safety-critical embedded systems use C because they have to. Not because it's nice. Claiming they do because C is such a great language to write safety-critical software in is a special kind of Stockholm syndrome.

staticassertion 4y ago

> You don't have to use a memory unsafe language, but others might. And we're telling them they shouldn't.

pjmlp 4y ago

I personly don't, yet they land on hardware devices and servers I am not asked about, and have an impact on my digitial life.