5 ms·

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.
    - generalizations 3y ago
      > Even the IT industry is much more mature than that The IT industry is like the average googler - competent enough to use the tools designed for them. They aren't who I'm talking about. > an unsupported claim by people who simply want to do whatever they like The claim that regulation doesn't hamper innovation is an unsupported assertion of control freaks. And regulation that directs innovation only does so because it makes alternative innovations harder - not because it makes certain innovations easier. > All those innovations go back to the 1990s. Don't take such things for granted. Their age makes them no less relevant; regulation would have killed them just as easily as chatgpt. I picked old tech as examples because their benefit to the world - and the lax regulatory environment they were created in - are both incontrovertible. That makes them no less examples of innovation. > oppression has increased and democracy and freedom have retreated One of the best weapons to implement these kinds of changes are an ever-increasing regulatory burden. Small wonder that's increased alongside the harms you describe. > misinformation Everyone does it, everyone gets fooled by it, everyone thinks they're special. More signal, more information - not less - is the only hope for a solution there. But that's not what I meant. I meant that I have gcc on my laptop, and I can compile code there that runs on linux, and no one can stop me from writing code and sharing it. But they can add ever greater regulations to the infrastructure involved until the friction kills the community.
- estebank 3y ago
  I am reminded of physicians disliking the idea of checklists[1] and revolting against hand washing[2]. [1]: https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2018/11/one-thing-at-a-time-a-brief-history-of-the-checklist/ https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2018/11/one-thing-at-a... (interestingly, I would argue that Boeing Model 299 being able to be accelerated enough to lift off while gust locks were engaged were was a design failure, and points towards the need for safe-by-design mechanisms, even for experienced operators.) [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_reaction_to_Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_reaction_to_Ignaz... I often see people likening software development with woodworking, which is funny because I think our industry is still at at the "you're not a real carpenter unless you're missing three fingers" stage.
  - throwawaymaths 3y ago
    if checklists are what you're all about, how about mandating unit tests.
- throwawaymaths 3y ago
  memory safety is not the only safety. Dangerous machines are more likely to be fucked by nondeterministic timing or OOMing / overflowing more than "is it memory safe". Notably, rust protects you from neither, and in many ways, obfuscates you and puts you at risk from both. The first, via macros, the second, via hidden allocations
- binary132 3y ago
  There are domains where things like Ada SPARK are (or were) the standard. I’m not sure that’s really necessary for everything, but for those other things it wouldn’t hurt to use a memory-managed language. But that’s already mostly the norm there, too. I think the real subject being discussed here is the viability of Rust for applications which are traditionally a good fit for C and C++. I think it would be better to be specific about that.

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.
  - generalizations 3y ago
    > Even the IT industry is much more mature than that The IT industry is like the average googler - competent enough to use the tools designed for them. They aren't who I'm talking about. > an unsupported claim by people who simply want to do whatever they like The claim that regulation doesn't hamper innovation is an unsupported assertion of control freaks. And regulation that directs innovation only does so because it makes alternative innovations harder - not because it makes certain innovations easier. > All those innovations go back to the 1990s. Don't take such things for granted. Their age makes them no less relevant; regulation would have killed them just as easily as chatgpt. I picked old tech as examples because their benefit to the world - and the lax regulatory environment they were created in - are both incontrovertible. That makes them no less examples of innovation. > oppression has increased and democracy and freedom have retreated One of the best weapons to implement these kinds of changes are an ever-increasing regulatory burden. Small wonder that's increased alongside the harms you describe. > misinformation Everyone does it, everyone gets fooled by it, everyone thinks they're special. More signal, more information - not less - is the only hope for a solution there. But that's not what I meant. I meant that I have gcc on my laptop, and I can compile code there that runs on linux, and no one can stop me from writing code and sharing it. But they can add ever greater regulations to the infrastructure involved until the friction kills the community.
estebank 3y ago
I am reminded of physicians disliking the idea of checklists[1] and revolting against hand washing[2]. [1]: https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2018/11/one-thing-at-a-time-a-brief-history-of-the-checklist/ https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2018/11/one-thing-at-a... (interestingly, I would argue that Boeing Model 299 being able to be accelerated enough to lift off while gust locks were engaged were was a design failure, and points towards the need for safe-by-design mechanisms, even for experienced operators.) [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_reaction_to_Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_reaction_to_Ignaz... I often see people likening software development with woodworking, which is funny because I think our industry is still at at the "you're not a real carpenter unless you're missing three fingers" stage.
- throwawaymaths 3y ago
  if checklists are what you're all about, how about mandating unit tests.
throwawaymaths 3y ago
memory safety is not the only safety. Dangerous machines are more likely to be fucked by nondeterministic timing or OOMing / overflowing more than "is it memory safe". Notably, rust protects you from neither, and in many ways, obfuscates you and puts you at risk from both. The first, via macros, the second, via hidden allocations
binary132 3y ago
There are domains where things like Ada SPARK are (or were) the standard. I’m not sure that’s really necessary for everything, but for those other things it wouldn’t hurt to use a memory-managed language. But that’s already mostly the norm there, too. I think the real subject being discussed here is the viability of Rust for applications which are traditionally a good fit for C and C++. I think it would be better to be specific about that.