3 ms·
It's very hard; DARPA likes to fund hard things[1] :-). This isn't, however, DARPA's first foray into automatic program translation, or even automatic translat
by woodruffw 2y ago
It's very hard; DARPA likes to fund hard things[1] :-).
This isn't, however, DARPA's first foray into automatic program translation, or even automatic translation into Rust[2].
[1]: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=DARPA%20hard https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=DARPA%20hard
[2]: https://c2rust.com/ https://c2rust.com/
- the_snooze 2y agoDARPA is basically a state-sponsored VC that optimizes for completely different things. Instead of looking for 100x financial returns, they want technical advantages for the United States. The "moat" is the hardness of developing and operationalizing those technologies first.
- woodruffw 2y agoDARPA's commercialization track record is decidedly mixed, so the VC comparison is unexpectedly apt :-) (But yes: DARPA's mandate is explicitly to discover and develop the next generation of emerging technologies for military use.)
- pfdietz 2y agoDecades ago, as my father explained to me, ARPA (no "D" at that time) was happy if 1% of their projects went all the way through to successful deployment. If they had a higher success rate it would mean they weren't aiming high enough.
- VikingCoder 2y ago> DARPA's commercialization track record is decidedly mixed... If you count my number of attempts, sure. If you count by impact, it's hard to come up with many things more impactful than the Internet...?
- woodruffw 2y agoYeah, I meant by number. But also: ARPA didn't commercialize the Internet! They explicitly refused to commercialize it; commercialization only happened after an Act of Congress induced interconnections between NSFNET and commercial networks.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mburns 2y agoTo be pedantic, In-q-tel is the literal state-sponsored VC. DARPA is a step closer to traditional research labs but there is obviously some overlap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel
- throwup238 2y ago> DARPA is a step closer to traditional research labs but there is obviously some overlap. It's more like the NSF but focused on commercial grantees with project management thrown on top to orchestrate everything. The really unique part is how much independence each program manager has and the term limits that prevent empire building.
- fsckboy 2y agoin this case it seems to me the hard task that DARPA has chosen is to get me to forget how much they spent on pushing Ada.
- woodruffw 2y agoI can't find any clear references to DARPA (or ARPA) being involved in Ada's development. It was a DoD program but, well, the DoD is notoriously large and multi-headed. (But even if DARPA was involved in Ada: I think it's clear, at this point, that Ada has been a resounding success in a small number of domains without successfully breaking into general-purpose adoption. I don't have a particular value judgment associated with that, but from a strategic perspective it makes a lot of sense for DARPA to focus program analysis research on popular general-purpose languages -- there's just more labor and talent available.)
- indolering 2y agoToo lazy to look it up, but I'm pretty sure DARPA was involved and certain that DoD contracta prioritized ADA for a long time.
- rerdavies 2y agoToo bored to pass up a challenge to refute somebody who is too lazy to look it up. I looked it up. DARPA was not involved.
- reaperducer 2y agoin this case it seems to me the hard task that DARPA has chosen is to get me to forget how much they spent on pushing Ada. You hate jumbo jets, high-speed trains, air traffic control, and satellites?
- 9659 2y agoDo you know what fear is? Getting in an airplane where the flight controls use NPM.