4 ms·

I've read the report and it seems balanced and fair. I liked that they tackled how improvements could be made on many fronts, taking different approaches in eac

I've read the report and it seems balanced and fair. I liked that they tackled how improvements could be made on many fronts, taking different approaches in each one. They didn't go overboard with any assertion or recommendation. On one hand you're saying the problem is intractable and it'll take 25 years to solve. Then why are you criticising an effort to get the ball rolling? You're frustrated by the Government using old, outdated and possibly insecure software. Then surely the White House exhorting the Federal government to fix these issues and procure software without issues is a good thing? Of course any change is an opportunity for consultants to make money, but that doesn't mean the change isn't needed or that the White House is wrong for starting it.

infamouscow 3y ago
Because there is no clear objective success criterion. Further, once consultants are being paid, they're disincentivized to actually accomplish this incredibly broad and nebulous goal. It allows politicians to campaign on more secure computing, but never actually accomplishing anything except profiting from their spouse being one of these consultants. And by never solving the problem, it continues, which only further justifies spending more money to "fix" the problem. You might call this cynical, it's not, it's realistic. I challenge you to find an example where this level of corruption isn't taking place, and explain what makes you so confident that will be the case for this specific issue, drawing specifically on areas of contrast. If you can overcome the government corruption, you still have to overcome the lobbyists. You can't do both except in situations where the corporations are in cahoots with the government.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  Politicians are not campaigning on this at all. This is a niche topic that only impacts software developers. Nor is this setting out milestones for switching. It’s just advice saying “hey guys, consider other alternatives to C/C++”. It’s a social pressure - there’s no force of law behind this yet. And at most the government can only compel what their own vendors do.
- nindalf 3y ago
  You are so terrified of government, and yet you don't recognise how powerful government actually is. You're scared of some overreaching law and excessive waste, but actually that's not what's happening here. This is the White House using its Bully Pulpit to effect change. That is at once more effective in this particular case (because a law forcing the use of a language would be unconstitutional) and less harmful (because people can choose to ignore it).
  - infamouscow 3y ago
    This is a gross mischaracterization. I would encourage you to re-read both of my replies so as to best respond to the points about how government involvement does not actually solve problems, but instead perpetuates problems because of institutional corruption. Ad hominem attacks are not a counterargument to these inescapable facts, they're also against the community guidelines and do very little to persuade anyone to your position: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - nindalf 3y ago
      I’ve read far more coherent anti-government polemics than the one you’ve written. Those didn’t convince me, and I doubt re-reading yours will. They’re so greyed out I can barely make them out anyway. What you’ve mistaken as an ad hominem attack was me trying to tell you - even though you’re concerned of what the government may do here by passing laws, they’re doing much more with much less effort. I’m surprised that you were unable to grasp that.
      - infamouscow 3y ago
        What exactly do you think this report accomplishes? It's not legally binding like Congressional legislation or an executive order. Nobody has been prevented from using memory safe languages prior to the report being published. I'm sure there are plenty of instances where consultants and contractors have been required to use C or C++ because it's written into hundreds of thousands of pages of antiquated government contracts, but this report isn't a magic wand that's going to change those contracts. You have to convince the most stuffy lawyers imaginable to change them, which is an expensive endeavor that no reasonable business is going undertake unless it affects their bottom line, and that only happens after Congress passes a law. And prior to a law, there's going to be an army of lobbyists ready to carve out a waiver system, render any hope of improving software quality moot. I'm of the opinion it's merely a clarion call for D.C. parasites to invent ever-more creative ways to waste tax dollars. Without clear objective success criterion defined by the government, the problem will persist indefinitely. And if you're a bureaucrat with friends and family making millions consulting on this problem, you're disincentivized to solve anything. Why cut off the hand that feeds you. I'm eager to hear your thoughts about these undeniable problems.

infamouscow 3y ago

Because there is no clear objective success criterion. Further, once consultants are being paid, they're disincentivized to actually accomplish this incredibly broad and nebulous goal. It allows politicians to campaign on more secure computing, but never actually accomplishing anything except profiting from their spouse being one of these consultants. And by never solving the problem, it continues, which only further justifies spending more money to "fix" the problem. You might call this cynical, it's not, it's realistic. I challenge you to find an example where this level of corruption isn't taking place, and explain what makes you so confident that will be the case for this specific issue, drawing specifically on areas of contrast. If you can overcome the government corruption, you still have to overcome the lobbyists. You can't do both except in situations where the corporations are in cahoots with the government.

vlovich123 3y ago
Politicians are not campaigning on this at all. This is a niche topic that only impacts software developers. Nor is this setting out milestones for switching. It’s just advice saying “hey guys, consider other alternatives to C/C++”. It’s a social pressure - there’s no force of law behind this yet. And at most the government can only compel what their own vendors do.
nindalf 3y ago
You are so terrified of government, and yet you don't recognise how powerful government actually is. You're scared of some overreaching law and excessive waste, but actually that's not what's happening here. This is the White House using its Bully Pulpit to effect change. That is at once more effective in this particular case (because a law forcing the use of a language would be unconstitutional) and less harmful (because people can choose to ignore it).
- infamouscow 3y ago
  This is a gross mischaracterization. I would encourage you to re-read both of my replies so as to best respond to the points about how government involvement does not actually solve problems, but instead perpetuates problems because of institutional corruption. Ad hominem attacks are not a counterargument to these inescapable facts, they're also against the community guidelines and do very little to persuade anyone to your position: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - nindalf 3y ago
    I’ve read far more coherent anti-government polemics than the one you’ve written. Those didn’t convince me, and I doubt re-reading yours will. They’re so greyed out I can barely make them out anyway. What you’ve mistaken as an ad hominem attack was me trying to tell you - even though you’re concerned of what the government may do here by passing laws, they’re doing much more with much less effort. I’m surprised that you were unable to grasp that.
    - infamouscow 3y ago
      What exactly do you think this report accomplishes? It's not legally binding like Congressional legislation or an executive order. Nobody has been prevented from using memory safe languages prior to the report being published. I'm sure there are plenty of instances where consultants and contractors have been required to use C or C++ because it's written into hundreds of thousands of pages of antiquated government contracts, but this report isn't a magic wand that's going to change those contracts. You have to convince the most stuffy lawyers imaginable to change them, which is an expensive endeavor that no reasonable business is going undertake unless it affects their bottom line, and that only happens after Congress passes a law. And prior to a law, there's going to be an army of lobbyists ready to carve out a waiver system, render any hope of improving software quality moot. I'm of the opinion it's merely a clarion call for D.C. parasites to invent ever-more creative ways to waste tax dollars. Without clear objective success criterion defined by the government, the problem will persist indefinitely. And if you're a bureaucrat with friends and family making millions consulting on this problem, you're disincentivized to solve anything. Why cut off the hand that feeds you. I'm eager to hear your thoughts about these undeniable problems.