Quekid5

20 ms·

241.
by Quekid5 3y ago
It's definitely an improvement, but it doesn't fix the fundamental issue :/
242.
by Quekid5 3y ago
Sadly, many languages that have them make the parameter names optional at the call site. That's a language design mistake, IMO.
243.
by Quekid5 3y ago
Also the whole... "they're very probably not coming back from Mars alive" thing :)
244.
by Quekid5 3y ago
It interops seamlessly with C libraries.
245.
by Quekid5 3y ago
> Caring about some metadata changing does not seem to be as useful from a security perspective. If the metadata were neatly separated from the executable portions of an artifact then it indeed wouldn't be too much of an issue[1], b
246.
by Quekid5 3y ago
It's kind of a workaround for the fact that SQL doesn't do 0-tuples, aka. "unit".
247.
by Quekid5 3y ago
Just a little thing: Ownership could change from root-to-foo-and-back-again in between Check and Use. We might be talking degenerate cases, again. ... but again^2, probably a huge improvement over ignoring the problem. It will ultimately ne
248.
by Quekid5 3y ago
Because they're different things? There's obviously interplay, but from my experience... I have only vague recall of most CLI things, but I can get up to speed again very quickly (when a situation demands it) because I've out
249.
by Quekid5 3y ago
My objection would be that one (or more) path component(s) could come under the control of an adversary in between the check and the use. Granted it might take a weird set of circumstances -- e.g. a deployment process running in parallel
250.
by Quekid5 3y ago
This seems to still be vulnerable to TOCTOU? Tho, to be fair, it's probably an improvement by narrowing how simple it is to exploit relative to doing nothing.
251.
by Quekid5 3y ago
I wish nobody would have to. (Haha, only serious.)
252.
by Quekid5 3y ago
Computer architecture is optimized for 32+ bit aligned access to most things. The gain is (usually, but not always!) performance.
253.
by Quekid5 3y ago
> Code is usually a much smaller piece of company's business process than we developers like to think. I agree. Btw, I think you inverted the meaning of my sentence regarding 'hand over fist'. I was saying that staying on
254.
by Quekid5 3y ago
That's an interesting counterpoint, but I think it's a bit of a different tradeoff. Adding, say, dependent types, can be done as a gradual process with opt-in (via language extensions) and "only" requires heroic effort o
255.
by Quekid5 3y ago
That seems like it would just be giving attackers a different Weird Machine to target. It doesn't fundamentally change the wrongness.
256.
by Quekid5 3y ago
> If you have a company with a ton of Java 5 code... You are in deep deep trouble already, just process-wise. If you're making money hand over fist you might be able to afford to do that, but choice of language is not even on the
257.
by Quekid5 3y ago
Thank you, I think I "hear" it with your explanation! Shades of Irish in that one. Also, I'm suddenly reminded of the complete reverse, "Aaron earned an iron urn" meme for some random reason :)
258.
by Quekid5 3y ago
Ha, I remember doing a[0] 3-month stint as a student there back when a single PiB got oohs-and-aaahs! So crazy to see how much happened in terms of storage capacity in the intervening 20+ years. [0] Completely insignificant to them, but a g
259.
by Quekid5 3y ago
Do you have an example accent/dialect? I'm honestly curious, because I can't think of any... but then I'm neither a Brit nor an American, so... :)
260.
by Quekid5 3y ago
Yeah, I think some form of "use it or lose it" will be necessary. Either that or just making patents have to 'pay for themselves' via exponentially increasing cost (or some such) to maintain after the initial period of p
261.
by Quekid5 3y ago
> I mean, how do you explain oeuf vs. oeufs? Just like 'hour' and 'our' in English I assume. They just happened to sound exactly alike for different(?) reasons. EDIT: Probably similar reasons, actually? The "h&qu
262.
by Quekid5 3y ago
As you alluded to... How many compiler bugs materially affect the C->ASM bit of the pipeline rather than the C source code just being incorrect? I'd wager it's a tiny ratio, but I honestly don't know. Could you point to an
263.
by Quekid5 3y ago
I enjoyed that reference :)
264.
by Quekid5 3y ago
Congrats to you and the team on this huge milestone! Really looking forward to taking advantage of these things (transparently and automatically!) in ZIO/Scala... which I think shows the true power of the JVM-as-platform approach you&#
265.
by Quekid5 3y ago
I believe, e.g. ZIO 2.next is doing something like this, dynamically deciding whether running something async or just doing the blocking thing depending on the availability of VThreads... but of course that's Scala, so YMMV. Without a
266.
by Quekid5 3y ago
> I suspect one could do the same thing in any memory unsafe language. Granted, Java might make this somewhat easier by not having the concept of modifiable pointers, but discipline and static analysis could likely achieve the same. You
267.
by Quekid5 3y ago
> How is it memory safe if they are using off heap memory with malloc/free? I think it would only qualify as memory safe if they were using the GC which they purposefully avoid. You can still write a safe/minimal wrapper around
268.
by Quekid5 3y ago
Are you thinking of Hyrum's Law?
269.
by Quekid5 3y ago
Your CPU is effectively a virtual machine with stuff like branch prediction, speculative execution w/rollback, pipelining, implicit parallelism, etc. etc. Of course, it isn't able to do quite as much as a VM running in software (b
270.
by Quekid5 3y ago
This is questionable advice. In header files 'using namespace' should never be used, in implementation files it opens up some weird edge cases. Instead, do using fmt = std::format and then use fmt(...) as the function call

More ›