3 ms·

Are we concerned with memory safety and security or popularity?

tardibear 4y ago
Maintainability is the other issue.
pcwalton 4y ago
Both SPARK and Rust provide memory safety, so it's perfectly reasonable to use popularity as a "tie breaker". Applications are written by people; the more people who can usefully contribute, the more work can be done.
- 0xfedbee 4y ago
  What’s your source saying more people write Rust than Ada? There are people outside HN.
  - anp 4y ago
    The TIOBE index’s[0] methodology is definitely flawed but it currently lists Rust at 19 and Ada at 22. No mention of SPARK. [0] https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/
    - michaelmrose 4y ago
      If you use a flawed metric that measures nothing of note noting relative position is not illuminating.
  - mustache_kimono 4y ago
    > What’s your source saying more people write Rust than Ada? I think this "popularity" reasoning is flawed. It completely misses the context of the tool. Just ask yourself -- are there many UNIX CLI tools written in Ada/SPARK? I'm sure there are some, but not aware of any I use regularly. Meanwhile, there is a Cambrian explosion of Rust CLI tools taking place. "Popularity" is really a surrogate for "popular, accessible, infrastructure for an OSS CLI tool for UNIX", a place where Ada AFAIK has not been a first choice. If we were building firmware for a missile guidance computer, maybe the reasoning would be different? But it's still not a sufficient reason, so I'll add another: People really like using Rust to make these types of tools. It's amazing to me that people are so willing to discount as non-technical, and therefore unworthy of discussion, lots of people really like using Rust.
  - pcwalton 4y ago
    In my other comment I wrote "open source ecosystem" in order to avoid all the speculation about how much SPARK is used in commercial avionics and whatnot.
- ratmice 4y ago
  Seems obvious to me that ease of installation seems also is a factor where popularity can have an impact. If one is more popular that increases the likely hood that users will already be familiar with installation methods (ignoring actual difficulty), reaching more people in the process.
- csb6 4y ago
  SPARK goes further though. More advanced properties besides memory safety can be proven. This seems tremendously useful for something like sudo.
chmod600 4y ago
Apparently both. Computer languages are partially to communicate between people and computers, and partially to communicate among people.
- LASR 4y ago
  Exactly. The point of a programming language is to translate human intention into machine instructions. Whatever optimizes for the accuracy of the instruction output is the best. Sometimes it means language features. But it can also mean its popularity so you can get many more human eyes on the same bits of code.
dogma1138 4y ago
“Popularity” is quite important for security too as more people can vet the software and maintain it.

Maintainability is the other issue.

Both SPARK and Rust provide memory safety, so it's perfectly reasonable to use popularity as a "tie breaker". Applications are written by people; the more people who can usefully contribute, the more work can be done.

0xfedbee 4y ago
What’s your source saying more people write Rust than Ada? There are people outside HN.
- anp 4y ago
  The TIOBE index’s[0] methodology is definitely flawed but it currently lists Rust at 19 and Ada at 22. No mention of SPARK. [0] https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    If you use a flawed metric that measures nothing of note noting relative position is not illuminating.
- mustache_kimono 4y ago
  > What’s your source saying more people write Rust than Ada? I think this "popularity" reasoning is flawed. It completely misses the context of the tool. Just ask yourself -- are there many UNIX CLI tools written in Ada/SPARK? I'm sure there are some, but not aware of any I use regularly. Meanwhile, there is a Cambrian explosion of Rust CLI tools taking place. "Popularity" is really a surrogate for "popular, accessible, infrastructure for an OSS CLI tool for UNIX", a place where Ada AFAIK has not been a first choice. If we were building firmware for a missile guidance computer, maybe the reasoning would be different? But it's still not a sufficient reason, so I'll add another: People really like using Rust to make these types of tools. It's amazing to me that people are so willing to discount as non-technical, and therefore unworthy of discussion, lots of people really like using Rust.
- pcwalton 4y ago
  In my other comment I wrote "open source ecosystem" in order to avoid all the speculation about how much SPARK is used in commercial avionics and whatnot.
ratmice 4y ago
Seems obvious to me that ease of installation seems also is a factor where popularity can have an impact. If one is more popular that increases the likely hood that users will already be familiar with installation methods (ignoring actual difficulty), reaching more people in the process.
csb6 4y ago
SPARK goes further though. More advanced properties besides memory safety can be proven. This seems tremendously useful for something like sudo.

chmod600 4y ago

Apparently both. Computer languages are partially to communicate between people and computers, and partially to communicate among people.

LASR 4y ago
Exactly. The point of a programming language is to translate human intention into machine instructions. Whatever optimizes for the accuracy of the instruction output is the best. Sometimes it means language features. But it can also mean its popularity so you can get many more human eyes on the same bits of code.

dogma1138 4y ago

“Popularity” is quite important for security too as more people can vet the software and maintain it.