4 ms·

It's not just discussions about programming languages. All kinds of HN posts about security vulnerabilities commonly get sidetracked by very predictable "if onl

by avian 4y ago

It's not just discussions about programming languages. All kinds of HN posts about security vulnerabilities commonly get sidetracked by very predictable "if only it would be written in Rust" threads.

woodruffw 4y ago
I guess I don't understand how that qualifies as "sidetracking." If the vulnerability in question is a spatial or temporal memory safety bug, it seems very reasonable and pertinent to observe that Rust would have prevented it. Unless it's the volume or consistency of that reply that you're objecting to?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lnxg33k1 4y ago
  Yeah but does it make sense to suggest to rewrite software that are years old, have collected solutions for years and know how? Maybe rust devs could end wishing that things were written in rust and start writing things in rust
  - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
    > Maybe rust devs could end wishing that things were written in rust and start writing things in rust They are, though. Like, I don't even disagree with the cost of rewriting, but there are very much active efforts to rewrite things in rust (ex. coreutils - https://github.com/uutils/coreutils https://github.com/uutils/coreutils , OS - https://www.redox-os.org/ https://www.redox-os.org/ ) or to add rust to existing projects (Linux, Firefox and Chrome both (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/refs/heads/main/docs/security/rust-toolchain.md https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/refs/heads/...)).
  - steveklabnik 4y ago
    Then people complain that projects advertise themselves as being written in Rust.
  - burntsushi 4y ago
    This is just completely moving the goal posts. This thread was talking about observing that a particular vulnerability would be prevented in Rust. But now you've taken it from that, to, "why not rewrite the project in Rust." They are not the same thing. > start writing things in rust Yeah because nobody is writing anything in Rust. What a bunch of blowhards!

by avian 4y ago

It's not just discussions about programming languages. All kinds of HN posts about security vulnerabilities commonly get sidetracked by very predictable "if only it would be written in Rust" threads.

woodruffw 4y ago

I guess I don't understand how that qualifies as "sidetracking." If the vulnerability in question is a spatial or temporal memory safety bug, it seems very reasonable and pertinent to observe that Rust would have prevented it. Unless it's the volume or consistency of that reply that you're objecting to?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lnxg33k1 4y ago
Yeah but does it make sense to suggest to rewrite software that are years old, have collected solutions for years and know how? Maybe rust devs could end wishing that things were written in rust and start writing things in rust
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  > Maybe rust devs could end wishing that things were written in rust and start writing things in rust They are, though. Like, I don't even disagree with the cost of rewriting, but there are very much active efforts to rewrite things in rust (ex. coreutils - https://github.com/uutils/coreutils https://github.com/uutils/coreutils , OS - https://www.redox-os.org/ https://www.redox-os.org/ ) or to add rust to existing projects (Linux, Firefox and Chrome both (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/refs/heads/main/docs/security/rust-toolchain.md https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/refs/heads/...)).
- steveklabnik 4y ago
  Then people complain that projects advertise themselves as being written in Rust.
- burntsushi 4y ago
  This is just completely moving the goal posts. This thread was talking about observing that a particular vulnerability would be prevented in Rust. But now you've taken it from that, to, "why not rewrite the project in Rust." They are not the same thing. > start writing things in rust Yeah because nobody is writing anything in Rust. What a bunch of blowhards!