4 ms·

It's hard for me to imagine using any new network-touching software written in C. We have safer options now...

FpUser 3y ago
>"It's hard for me to imagine " Simple solution - don't
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
nghttp3 is not new software. nghttp3 can be used to create qpack standalone binary which does not touch the network. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ngtcp2/nghttp3/main/examples/qpack.cc https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ngtcp2/nghttp3/main/exampl...
- p-e-w 3y ago
  Not that it matters. OpenSSL was already 15 years old when Heartbleed was discovered, and the horrible code that caused it remained unnoticed for two years. The idea that software maturity and "enough eyes" can overcome the glaring problems from using memory-unsafe programming languages is a fantasy.
  - anuraaga 3y ago
    I believe the point is that this is http/3 support added to the nghttp2 library which has been around for a long time, longer than Rust's mainstream popularity started to build. While I haven't used it personally I have heard good things about the library it's good to see it continue. Dismissing a new feature in an existing library seems quite excessive and possibly zealous. Or perhaps we should just stop using OSes entirely because they continue to release new features in memory unsafe languages.
lemper 3y ago
just don't. and I am waiting for your contribution in free and open source software to write correct, safe, and performant in Ada. It'd be much more welcome if you write the formal business requirements in Spark. Rust? why would want to write SAFE software in a language without formal spec? I question the morality af those people.
- junon 3y ago
  I too question why people make flame-baiting comments about topics they don't understand.
  - lemper 3y ago
    agree, always see that kind of replies in threads related to software written in C. what those people want, eh? always derailing thread like that. I guess it's RESF in action. makes me despise Rust, tbh.
    - junon 3y ago
      I was making a remark about your comment. And it's because most security vulnerabilities these days have to do with memory issues, which must be manually enforced in languages like C. In Rust you get most of that for free, often even more optimized than being hand-written. Also, in my opinion, Rust is also just a nicer language to use than C - as much as I love C, I'm wildly more productive in Rust than in C/C++, and have a lot of peace of mind knowing I can more strenuously audit the behavior, security, and other aspects of the code with relative ease. I suggest trying Rust, understanding it, and then making a judgement call. Perhaps the community is 'loud' about it for good reason.
      - lemper 3y ago
        same, I was making a remark about your comment. also, in my and industry with much more as the stake, opinion, Ada is better. i suggest you to try Ada.
      - anonymoushn 3y ago
        I'm using Rust now and it seems quite nice but it could use a spec and defined semantics for provenance or whatever. It's difficult to discuss memory safety if what is actually meant is "Whatever Rust does" while the Rust docs repeatedly admit they aren't sure what Rust is meant to do in relevant areas.
p-e-w 3y ago
Indeed. The written in C part of the headline is a red flag, rather than the advertisement it is probably intended to be. It basically translates to "a piece of software that must be thoroughly audited by highly specialized security experts every few months in order to be even remotely confident that it doesn't contain catastrophic vulnerabilities that allow arbitrary code execution by unprivileged remote attackers".
- Longhanks 3y ago
  Given your extreme hyperbole, you probably aren't the target audience then. For me, it translates to "a piece of software universally compatible with a vast amount of compilers and platforms that is probably trivial to compile even in 10 years".
  - mike_hock 3y ago
    Those are orthogonal concerns, and you're both right. But that absolutely wasn't hyperbole.
queuebert 3y ago
Maybe it's secretly funded by the NSA.
- mdhb 3y ago
  While in reality they are coordinating with CISA to try and urgently move people away from C https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/urgent-need-memory-safety-software-products https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/urgent-need-memory-saf...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
anonymoushn 3y ago
What are you using instead of Linux?
- muldvarp 3y ago
  Their comment specifically mentions that they're talking about _new_ software.
- FridgeSeal 3y ago
  > new network-touching software I imagine their emphasis is on the new bit here.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  I’d love to have something else to use. Just because we sometimes have to make compromises for pragmatic reasons doesn’t invalidate the original point.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  ChromeOS, Android/Linux, iDevices, and Windows, where JavaScript, C++, Swift, Java/Kotlin, Rust, and .NET languages are the advised ones for new code, leaving C behind only for existing code.
- phyzome 3y ago
  "And yet you participate in society. Curious!"
otabdeveloper4 3y ago
> We have safer options now Not really. We just don't know the failure modes of the new hotness, and that makes us feel safer somehow. (Lol)
pjmlp 3y ago
We have had safer alternatives for ages, Modula-2 was created in 1978, Ada in 1983, Mac OS used Object Pascal (1984),.... Your point stands though.

>"It's hard for me to imagine " Simple solution - don't

nghttp3 is not new software. nghttp3 can be used to create qpack standalone binary which does not touch the network. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ngtcp2/nghttp3/main/examples/qpack.cc https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ngtcp2/nghttp3/main/exampl...

p-e-w 3y ago
Not that it matters. OpenSSL was already 15 years old when Heartbleed was discovered, and the horrible code that caused it remained unnoticed for two years. The idea that software maturity and "enough eyes" can overcome the glaring problems from using memory-unsafe programming languages is a fantasy.
- anuraaga 3y ago
  I believe the point is that this is http/3 support added to the nghttp2 library which has been around for a long time, longer than Rust's mainstream popularity started to build. While I haven't used it personally I have heard good things about the library it's good to see it continue. Dismissing a new feature in an existing library seems quite excessive and possibly zealous. Or perhaps we should just stop using OSes entirely because they continue to release new features in memory unsafe languages.

lemper 3y ago

just don't. and I am waiting for your contribution in free and open source software to write correct, safe, and performant in Ada. It'd be much more welcome if you write the formal business requirements in Spark. Rust? why would want to write SAFE software in a language without formal spec? I question the morality af those people.

junon 3y ago
I too question why people make flame-baiting comments about topics they don't understand.
- lemper 3y ago
  agree, always see that kind of replies in threads related to software written in C. what those people want, eh? always derailing thread like that. I guess it's RESF in action. makes me despise Rust, tbh.
  - junon 3y ago
    I was making a remark about your comment. And it's because most security vulnerabilities these days have to do with memory issues, which must be manually enforced in languages like C. In Rust you get most of that for free, often even more optimized than being hand-written. Also, in my opinion, Rust is also just a nicer language to use than C - as much as I love C, I'm wildly more productive in Rust than in C/C++, and have a lot of peace of mind knowing I can more strenuously audit the behavior, security, and other aspects of the code with relative ease. I suggest trying Rust, understanding it, and then making a judgement call. Perhaps the community is 'loud' about it for good reason.
    - lemper 3y ago
      same, I was making a remark about your comment. also, in my and industry with much more as the stake, opinion, Ada is better. i suggest you to try Ada.
    - anonymoushn 3y ago
      I'm using Rust now and it seems quite nice but it could use a spec and defined semantics for provenance or whatever. It's difficult to discuss memory safety if what is actually meant is "Whatever Rust does" while the Rust docs repeatedly admit they aren't sure what Rust is meant to do in relevant areas.

p-e-w 3y ago

Indeed. The written in C part of the headline is a red flag, rather than the advertisement it is probably intended to be. It basically translates to "a piece of software that must be thoroughly audited by highly specialized security experts every few months in order to be even remotely confident that it doesn't contain catastrophic vulnerabilities that allow arbitrary code execution by unprivileged remote attackers".

Longhanks 3y ago
Given your extreme hyperbole, you probably aren't the target audience then. For me, it translates to "a piece of software universally compatible with a vast amount of compilers and platforms that is probably trivial to compile even in 10 years".
- mike_hock 3y ago
  Those are orthogonal concerns, and you're both right. But that absolutely wasn't hyperbole.

queuebert 3y ago

Maybe it's secretly funded by the NSA.

mdhb 3y ago
While in reality they are coordinating with CISA to try and urgently move people away from C https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/urgent-need-memory-safety-software-products https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/urgent-need-memory-saf...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

anonymoushn 3y ago

What are you using instead of Linux?

muldvarp 3y ago
Their comment specifically mentions that they're talking about _new_ software.
FridgeSeal 3y ago
> new network-touching software I imagine their emphasis is on the new bit here.
Nextgrid 3y ago
I’d love to have something else to use. Just because we sometimes have to make compromises for pragmatic reasons doesn’t invalidate the original point.
pjmlp 3y ago
ChromeOS, Android/Linux, iDevices, and Windows, where JavaScript, C++, Swift, Java/Kotlin, Rust, and .NET languages are the advised ones for new code, leaving C behind only for existing code.
phyzome 3y ago
"And yet you participate in society. Curious!"

otabdeveloper4 3y ago

> We have safer options now Not really. We just don't know the failure modes of the new hotness, and that makes us feel safer somehow. (Lol)

pjmlp 3y ago

We have had safer alternatives for ages, Modula-2 was created in 1978, Ada in 1983, Mac OS used Object Pascal (1984),.... Your point stands though.