3 ms·
What good is being slightly shorter if it us still nowhere remotely close to practical? Its kind of like saying 100 years is a lot shorter than 200 years. It m
by bawolff 2y ago
What good is being slightly shorter if it us still nowhere remotely close to practical?
Its kind of like saying 100 years is a lot shorter than 200 years. It might be true, but if all the time you have to dedicate is a few hours it really doesnt matter.
- jeffparsons 2y agoIt doesn't need to be _perfectly_ auditable to be worthwhile — it just needs to be more auditable than the alternatives available today.
- dwattttt 2y agoI dunno about that; suppose dozer completes its goal, and 1 year later you want to audit the bootstrap chain. Latest Rust probably won't be able to be compiled by it, so you now need to audit what, 6 months of changes to the Rust language? How many months is short enough to handle? If dozer _does_ keep getting maintained, the situation isn't exactly better either: you instead have to audit the work dozer did to support those 6 months of Rust changes.
- mkesper 2y agoIt will be hex editor -> assembler -> tinycc -> dozer -> latest rust so should absolutely be doable or am I missing something?