4 ms·

I'm getting the impression that C/C++ cultists love it whenever there's an npm exploit because then they can gleefully point at it and pretend that any first-pa

I'm getting the impression that C/C++ cultists love it whenever there's an npm exploit because then they can gleefully point at it and pretend that any first-party package manager for C/C++ would inevitably result in the same, nevermind the other languages that do not have this issue, or have it to a far, far lesser extent. Do these cultists just not use dependencies? Are they just [probably inexpertly] reinventing every wheel? Or do they use system packages like that's any better *cough* AUR exploits *cought*. While dependency hell on nodejs (and even Rust if we're honest) is certainly a concern, it's npm's permissiveness and lack of auditing that's the real problem. That's why Debian is so praised.

palata 1y ago
> Or do they use system packages like that's any better cough AUR exploits cought. AUR stands for "Arch User Repository". It's not the official system repository. > I'm getting the impression that C/C++ cultists love it whenever there's an npm exploit I am not a C/C++ cultist at all, and I actually don't like C++ (the language) so much (I've worked with it for years). I, for one, do not love it when there is an exploit in a language package manager. My problem with language package managers is that people love them precisely because they don't want to learn how to deal with dependencies. Which is actually the problem: if I pull a random Rust library, it will itself pull many transitive dependencies. I recently compared two implementations of the same standard (C++ vs Rust): in C++ it had 8 dependencies (I can audit that myself). In Rust... it had 260 of them. 260! I won't even read through all those names. "It's too hard to add a dependency in C++" is, in my opinion, missing the point. In C++, you have to actually deal with the dependency. You know it exists, you have seen it at least once in your life. The fact that you can't easily pull 260 dependencies you have never heard about is a feature, not a bug. I would be totally fine with great tooling like cargo, if it looked like the problem of random third-party dependencies was under control. But it is not. Not remotely. > Do these cultists just not use dependencies? I choose my dependencies carefully. If I need a couple functions from an open source dependency I don't know, I can often just pull those two functions and maintain them myself (instead of pulling the dependency and its 10 dependencies). > Are they just [probably inexpertly] reinventing every wheel? I find it ironic that when I explain that my problem is that I want to be able to audit (and maintain, if necessary) my dependencies, the answer that comes suggests that I am incompetent and "inexpertly" doing my job. Would it make me more of an expert if I was pulling, running and distributing random code from the Internet without having the smallest clue about who wrote it? Do I need to complain about how hard CMake is and compare a command line to a "magic incantation" to be considered an expert?
- Defletter 1y ago
  > AUR stands for "Arch User Repository". It's not the official system repository. Okay... and? The point being made was that the issue of package managers remains: do you really think users are auditing all those "lib<slam-head-on-keyboard>" dependencies that they're forced to install? Whether they install those dependencies from the official repository or from homebrew, or nix, or AUR, or whatever, is immaterial, the developer washed their hands of this, instead leaving it to the user who in all likelihood knows significantly less than the developers to be able to make an informed decision, so they YOLO it. Third-party repositories would not exist if they had no utility. But this is why Debian is so revered: they understand this dynamic and so maintain repositories that can be trusted. Whereas the solution C/C++ cultists seem to implicitly prefer is having no repositories because dependencies are, at best, a slippery slope. > "It's too hard to add a dependency in C++" It's not hard to add a dependency. I actually prefer the dependencies-as-git-submodules approach to package managers: it's explicit and you know what you're getting and from where. But using those dependencies is a different story altogether. Don't you just love it when one or more of your dependencies has a completely different build system to the others? So now you have to start building dependencies independently, whose artefacts are in different places, etc, etc, this shouldn't be a problem. > I, for one, do not love it when there is an exploit in a language package manager. Oh please, I believe that about as much as ambulance chasers saying they don't love medical emergencies. Otherwise, why are any and all comments begging for a first-party package manager immediately swamped with strawmans about npm as if anyone is actually asking for that, instead of, say, what Zig or Go has? It's because of the cultism, and every npm exploit further entrenches it.
  - pclmulqdq 1y ago
    C++ usage has nothing to do with static/dynamic linking. One is a language and the other is a way of using libraries. Dynamic linking gives you small binaries with a lot of cross-compatibility, and static linking gives you big binaries with known function. Most production C++ out there follows the same pattern as Rust and Go and uses static linking (where do you think Rust and Go got that pattern from?). Python is a weird language that has tons of dynamic linking while also having a big package manager, which is why pip is hell to use and PyTorch is infamously hard to install. Dynamic linking shifts responsibility for the linked libraries over to the user and their OS, and if it's an Arch user using AUR they are likely very interested in assuming that risk for themselves. 99.9% of Linux users are using Debian or Ubuntu with apt for all these libs, and those maintainers do pay a lot of attention to libraries.
pclmulqdq 1y ago
What makes me a C++ "cultist"? I like the language, but I don't think it's a cult. And yes, they do implement their own wheel all the time (usually expertly) because libraries are reserved for functions that really need it: writing left pad is really easy. They also use third-party libraries all the time, too. They just generally pay attention to the source of that library. Google and Facebook also publish a lot of C++ libraries under one umbrella (abseil and folly respectively), and people often use one of them.
bluGill 1y ago
STOP SAYING CULTIST! The word has very strong meaning and does not apply to anyone working with C or C++. I take offense at being called a cultist just because I say C++ is not nearly as bad as the haters keep claiming it is - as well I should.

palata 1y ago

> Or do they use system packages like that's any better cough AUR exploits cought. AUR stands for "Arch User Repository". It's not the official system repository. > I'm getting the impression that C/C++ cultists love it whenever there's an npm exploit I am not a C/C++ cultist at all, and I actually don't like C++ (the language) so much (I've worked with it for years). I, for one, do not love it when there is an exploit in a language package manager. My problem with language package managers is that people love them precisely because they don't want to learn how to deal with dependencies. Which is actually the problem: if I pull a random Rust library, it will itself pull many transitive dependencies. I recently compared two implementations of the same standard (C++ vs Rust): in C++ it had 8 dependencies (I can audit that myself). In Rust... it had 260 of them. 260! I won't even read through all those names. "It's too hard to add a dependency in C++" is, in my opinion, missing the point. In C++, you have to actually deal with the dependency. You know it exists, you have seen it at least once in your life. The fact that you can't easily pull 260 dependencies you have never heard about is a feature, not a bug. I would be totally fine with great tooling like cargo, if it looked like the problem of random third-party dependencies was under control. But it is not. Not remotely. > Do these cultists just not use dependencies? I choose my dependencies carefully. If I need a couple functions from an open source dependency I don't know, I can often just pull those two functions and maintain them myself (instead of pulling the dependency and its 10 dependencies). > Are they just [probably inexpertly] reinventing every wheel? I find it ironic that when I explain that my problem is that I want to be able to audit (and maintain, if necessary) my dependencies, the answer that comes suggests that I am incompetent and "inexpertly" doing my job. Would it make me more of an expert if I was pulling, running and distributing random code from the Internet without having the smallest clue about who wrote it? Do I need to complain about how hard CMake is and compare a command line to a "magic incantation" to be considered an expert?

Defletter 1y ago
> AUR stands for "Arch User Repository". It's not the official system repository. Okay... and? The point being made was that the issue of package managers remains: do you really think users are auditing all those "lib<slam-head-on-keyboard>" dependencies that they're forced to install? Whether they install those dependencies from the official repository or from homebrew, or nix, or AUR, or whatever, is immaterial, the developer washed their hands of this, instead leaving it to the user who in all likelihood knows significantly less than the developers to be able to make an informed decision, so they YOLO it. Third-party repositories would not exist if they had no utility. But this is why Debian is so revered: they understand this dynamic and so maintain repositories that can be trusted. Whereas the solution C/C++ cultists seem to implicitly prefer is having no repositories because dependencies are, at best, a slippery slope. > "It's too hard to add a dependency in C++" It's not hard to add a dependency. I actually prefer the dependencies-as-git-submodules approach to package managers: it's explicit and you know what you're getting and from where. But using those dependencies is a different story altogether. Don't you just love it when one or more of your dependencies has a completely different build system to the others? So now you have to start building dependencies independently, whose artefacts are in different places, etc, etc, this shouldn't be a problem. > I, for one, do not love it when there is an exploit in a language package manager. Oh please, I believe that about as much as ambulance chasers saying they don't love medical emergencies. Otherwise, why are any and all comments begging for a first-party package manager immediately swamped with strawmans about npm as if anyone is actually asking for that, instead of, say, what Zig or Go has? It's because of the cultism, and every npm exploit further entrenches it.
- pclmulqdq 1y ago
  C++ usage has nothing to do with static/dynamic linking. One is a language and the other is a way of using libraries. Dynamic linking gives you small binaries with a lot of cross-compatibility, and static linking gives you big binaries with known function. Most production C++ out there follows the same pattern as Rust and Go and uses static linking (where do you think Rust and Go got that pattern from?). Python is a weird language that has tons of dynamic linking while also having a big package manager, which is why pip is hell to use and PyTorch is infamously hard to install. Dynamic linking shifts responsibility for the linked libraries over to the user and their OS, and if it's an Arch user using AUR they are likely very interested in assuming that risk for themselves. 99.9% of Linux users are using Debian or Ubuntu with apt for all these libs, and those maintainers do pay a lot of attention to libraries.

pclmulqdq 1y ago

What makes me a C++ "cultist"? I like the language, but I don't think it's a cult. And yes, they do implement their own wheel all the time (usually expertly) because libraries are reserved for functions that really need it: writing left pad is really easy. They also use third-party libraries all the time, too. They just generally pay attention to the source of that library. Google and Facebook also publish a lot of C++ libraries under one umbrella (abseil and folly respectively), and people often use one of them.

bluGill 1y ago

STOP SAYING CULTIST! The word has very strong meaning and does not apply to anyone working with C or C++. I take offense at being called a cultist just because I say C++ is not nearly as bad as the haters keep claiming it is - as well I should.