4 ms·

what does this even mean. I guess in the future you will not be allowed to use any rust that uses unsafe()?

digging 3y ago
Are you asking what does (the comment you're replying to) mean, or what does (TFA) mean? > not be allowed to use any rust that uses unsafe() Not allowed by whom? What's made you assume your computer will be policed for non-memory-safe code?
_mlbt 3y ago
No one is saying that you can't use unsafe languages or features when you need to. This press release is announcing the release of a report from the White House Office of the National Cyber Director (ONCD) and it is simply a recommendation, not law or regulatory guidance.
- generalizations 3y ago
  TBH it'd be pretty hilarious if they actually tried to restrict the use of unsafe languages.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Other fields are restricted from using unsafe materials and materials, and are required to demonstrate safety. I think IT still has it's head in the space of an immature industry of hackers. IMHO, at least for many things, such as IT systems controlling fundamental public functions (e.g., DNS), services (e.g., electrical grid), dangerous machines, etc., our engineering should be held the same standards as bridges, airplanes, etc. Look at the endless problems and costs caused by our crappy quality: National security harms and risk, privacy violations, endless fraud, systems that are almost impossible to adequately secure.
    - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 3y ago
      Maybe C++ will be like asbestos: "Don't build with it. Wear PPE while removing it. And if it's not doing anything, for god's sake, don't touch it!"
    - generalizations 3y ago
      > immature industry of hackers This hacker news, after all. Hackers built this stuff, and they laugh at the bureaucrats who try to make rules to control it. > our engineering should be held the same standards as bridges, airplanes, etc In principle, I'd agree. BUT that's only going to happen when the practitioners have the ability to say "no" to bad designs and short deadlines. Which requires some kind of professional engineering certification, and requirements that only certified software engineers be allowed to do certain things, and certified software engineers that actually have the guts to say no. Lacking that, we'd just have to regulate the designs themselves - and, as soon as government regs get their hands on any software design, I guarantee you innovation of those designs will freeze. (Same reason why innovation of private aircraft has frozen - the cessna, the most popular private aircraft, is an eighty year old design because innovation is virtually impossible, because regulations, because safety.) > Look at the endless problems and costs caused by our crappy quality: National security harms and risk, privacy violations, endless fraud, systems that are almost impossible to adequately secure. Yes, but look at the incredible pace of innovation which the lack of regulation has allowed: web browsers, operating systems, word processors, scripting languages, world-wide communication and freedom from oppression. You can't stop the signal.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        > Hackers built this stuff, and they laugh at the bureaucrats who try to make rules to control it. Even the IT industry is much more mature than that. That and the rest of the comment are an old fantasy that reality left behind long ago. Look at the reality of these things: > Yes, but look at the incredible pace of innovation which the lack of regulation has allowed: web browsers, operating systems, word processors, scripting languages, world-wide communication and freedom from oppression. You can't stop the signal. An inverse relationship between pace of innovation and regulation is an unsupported claim by people who simply want to do whatever they like and/or want unrestricted personal Of course some regulation could impede innovation, while some could greatly improve it. Imagine innovation in privacy, for example, because regulations require it, rather than ignoring privacy because it's almost entirely unregulated (in the US). > innovation which the lack of regulation has allowed: web browsers, operating systems, word processors, scripting languages, world-wide communication All those innovations go back to the 1990s. > freedom from oppression. You can't stop the signal. In fact, oppression has increased and democracy and freedom have retreated for the last 20 years. Many SV leaders are against or ambivalent about democracy, and push anti-democratic narratives (which favor giving more power to them, of course). End-user control, including freedom-as-in-speech, in IT is almost a forgotten issue. And once the oppressors got the hang of it, they now very ably use the Internet and other technology to conduct effective information warfare directly against the public.
sunshowers 3y ago
I feel like people on an esteemed forum like Hacker News should be able to move past this kind of beginner-level argument. The point of memory safe languages is not to not have unsafe code. It is to centralize unsafe code in a few places that can be thoroughly audited, tested, and verified, and then provide safe abstractions on top of that.
- throwawaymaths 3y ago
  The point is not about hacker news. The point is: should we choose to regulate this, what level of sophistication do you think regulators will operate at? Inb4 this is only a recommendation: regulation often starts as recommendation trial balloons

Are you asking what does (the comment you're replying to) mean, or what does (TFA) mean? > not be allowed to use any rust that uses unsafe() Not allowed by whom? What's made you assume your computer will be policed for non-memory-safe code?

_mlbt 3y ago

No one is saying that you can't use unsafe languages or features when you need to. This press release is announcing the release of a report from the White House Office of the National Cyber Director (ONCD) and it is simply a recommendation, not law or regulatory guidance.

generalizations 3y ago
TBH it'd be pretty hilarious if they actually tried to restrict the use of unsafe languages.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Other fields are restricted from using unsafe materials and materials, and are required to demonstrate safety. I think IT still has it's head in the space of an immature industry of hackers. IMHO, at least for many things, such as IT systems controlling fundamental public functions (e.g., DNS), services (e.g., electrical grid), dangerous machines, etc., our engineering should be held the same standards as bridges, airplanes, etc. Look at the endless problems and costs caused by our crappy quality: National security harms and risk, privacy violations, endless fraud, systems that are almost impossible to adequately secure.
  - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 3y ago
    Maybe C++ will be like asbestos: "Don't build with it. Wear PPE while removing it. And if it's not doing anything, for god's sake, don't touch it!"
  - generalizations 3y ago
    > immature industry of hackers This hacker news, after all. Hackers built this stuff, and they laugh at the bureaucrats who try to make rules to control it. > our engineering should be held the same standards as bridges, airplanes, etc In principle, I'd agree. BUT that's only going to happen when the practitioners have the ability to say "no" to bad designs and short deadlines. Which requires some kind of professional engineering certification, and requirements that only certified software engineers be allowed to do certain things, and certified software engineers that actually have the guts to say no. Lacking that, we'd just have to regulate the designs themselves - and, as soon as government regs get their hands on any software design, I guarantee you innovation of those designs will freeze. (Same reason why innovation of private aircraft has frozen - the cessna, the most popular private aircraft, is an eighty year old design because innovation is virtually impossible, because regulations, because safety.) > Look at the endless problems and costs caused by our crappy quality: National security harms and risk, privacy violations, endless fraud, systems that are almost impossible to adequately secure. Yes, but look at the incredible pace of innovation which the lack of regulation has allowed: web browsers, operating systems, word processors, scripting languages, world-wide communication and freedom from oppression. You can't stop the signal.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > Hackers built this stuff, and they laugh at the bureaucrats who try to make rules to control it. Even the IT industry is much more mature than that. That and the rest of the comment are an old fantasy that reality left behind long ago. Look at the reality of these things: > Yes, but look at the incredible pace of innovation which the lack of regulation has allowed: web browsers, operating systems, word processors, scripting languages, world-wide communication and freedom from oppression. You can't stop the signal. An inverse relationship between pace of innovation and regulation is an unsupported claim by people who simply want to do whatever they like and/or want unrestricted personal Of course some regulation could impede innovation, while some could greatly improve it. Imagine innovation in privacy, for example, because regulations require it, rather than ignoring privacy because it's almost entirely unregulated (in the US). > innovation which the lack of regulation has allowed: web browsers, operating systems, word processors, scripting languages, world-wide communication All those innovations go back to the 1990s. > freedom from oppression. You can't stop the signal. In fact, oppression has increased and democracy and freedom have retreated for the last 20 years. Many SV leaders are against or ambivalent about democracy, and push anti-democratic narratives (which favor giving more power to them, of course). End-user control, including freedom-as-in-speech, in IT is almost a forgotten issue. And once the oppressors got the hang of it, they now very ably use the Internet and other technology to conduct effective information warfare directly against the public.

sunshowers 3y ago

I feel like people on an esteemed forum like Hacker News should be able to move past this kind of beginner-level argument. The point of memory safe languages is not to not have unsafe code. It is to centralize unsafe code in a few places that can be thoroughly audited, tested, and verified, and then provide safe abstractions on top of that.

throwawaymaths 3y ago
The point is not about hacker news. The point is: should we choose to regulate this, what level of sophistication do you think regulators will operate at? Inb4 this is only a recommendation: regulation often starts as recommendation trial balloons