3 ms·

> We are destroying software pushing for rewrites of things that work. Software written in C continues to be riddled with elementary security holes, despite be

> We are destroying software pushing for rewrites of things that work. Software written in C continues to be riddled with elementary security holes, despite being written and reviewed by experts. If anything the push to rewrite is too weak, we have known about the dangers for decades at this point. We aren't destroying software, it was never all that. The software of the 90s was generally janky in a way that would never be tolerated today.

perfmode 2y ago
Is someone pushing to rewrite Redis?
- thom 2y ago
  Microsoft created a managed, wire-compatible alternative: https://github.com/microsoft/garnet https://github.com/microsoft/garnet
- akshayshah 2y ago
  There’s the Valkey fork, which is now evolving independently. Microsoft’s Garnet and Dragonfly are independent implementations that are pretty different under the hood.
blueflow 2y ago
It surely had better manpages and documentation tho.
dvhh 2y ago
The software does not necessarily need to be written in C ( or C++) for these elementary security holes to happen.
lazystar 2y ago
> The software of the 90s was generally janky in a way that would never be tolerated today. Speaking as someone who grew up in the 90's, I think the software products thst are developed today lack the creativity that existed in the software developed during the 90's. Rigid development frameworks that exist today prevent "jankiness" by reducing the number of design decisions that are available to a developer, and in my opinion this has resulted in a lack of diversity in the products available to consumers. Ironically everyone today is using Kubernetes (aka "Borg") under the hood, and this is the same weakness that the Borg had in Star Trek.
sgarland 2y ago
> The software of the 90s was generally janky in a way that would never be tolerated today. Modern software, at least for web, is generally hideously unreliable, unperformant, and manages decent uptime only by running it in large parallel deployments, with an orchestrator that automatically reboots dead instances.
- ujkiolp 2y ago
  generalizations, generalizations

perfmode 2y ago

Is someone pushing to rewrite Redis?

thom 2y ago
Microsoft created a managed, wire-compatible alternative: https://github.com/microsoft/garnet https://github.com/microsoft/garnet
akshayshah 2y ago
There’s the Valkey fork, which is now evolving independently. Microsoft’s Garnet and Dragonfly are independent implementations that are pretty different under the hood.

blueflow 2y ago

It surely had better manpages and documentation tho.

dvhh 2y ago

The software does not necessarily need to be written in C ( or C++) for these elementary security holes to happen.

lazystar 2y ago

> The software of the 90s was generally janky in a way that would never be tolerated today. Speaking as someone who grew up in the 90's, I think the software products thst are developed today lack the creativity that existed in the software developed during the 90's. Rigid development frameworks that exist today prevent "jankiness" by reducing the number of design decisions that are available to a developer, and in my opinion this has resulted in a lack of diversity in the products available to consumers. Ironically everyone today is using Kubernetes (aka "Borg") under the hood, and this is the same weakness that the Borg had in Star Trek.

sgarland 2y ago

> The software of the 90s was generally janky in a way that would never be tolerated today. Modern software, at least for web, is generally hideously unreliable, unperformant, and manages decent uptime only by running it in large parallel deployments, with an orchestrator that automatically reboots dead instances.

ujkiolp 2y ago
generalizations, generalizations