staticassertion

275 ms·

1. 4051.▲
   by staticassertion 8y ago

   I had a longer post. I've deleted it. What I'll say is that I did not find the article convincing at all. I'm quite biased, as I found it incredibly insulting throughout the article, as I myself dropped out of college. I beli
2. 4052.▲
   by staticassertion 8y ago

   Similarly, the intellij plugin for Rust will reveal implicit type annotations.
3. 4053.▲
   by staticassertion 8y ago

   And Go isn't memory safe given race conditions. If you're using goroutines you may want to consider fuzzing with the race detector.
4. 4054.▲
   by staticassertion 8y ago

   Firefox isn't exactly stagnating - Servo has a lot of promise for performance.
5. 4055.▲
   by staticassertion 8y ago

   I don't see how you could have missed (b).
6. 4056.▲
   by staticassertion 8y ago

   I don't believe that writing wrappers is particularly important, though I think that anyone who uses SQS is likely to build an abstraction over it at some point (as with all lower level communication protocols, at some point you build
7. 4057.▲
   by staticassertion 8y ago

   While I could probably answer that, I don't think it's relevant to my central point - that lock-in is not as big of a deal as it's portrayed as, and that lambdas do not make the problem considerably worse.
8. 4058.▲
   by staticassertion 8y ago

   Sorry, I don't agree, and I feel like I provided evidence why in my first post. To summarize, choosing services like Postgres and S3 doesn't lock you in. SQS and SNS might, but I think it's an exaggerated cost, and that has n
9. 4059.▲
   by staticassertion 8y ago

   I'm not sure I see your point. What is it you think I'm advocating for? My only point is that vendor lock-in is not a significant issue on AWS, and that it requires virtually no effort to avoid it.
10. 4060.▲
    by staticassertion 8y ago

    OK. So you connect to Postgres on RDS - cloud agnostic. You connect to S3, and: a) You can build an abstraction service if you care about vendor lock-in so much b) It has an API that plenty of open source projects are compatible with (I bel
11. 4061.▲
    by staticassertion 8y ago

    The argument makes no sense. Because it is deployed in AWS, you can't get performance without using AWS services, therefor it is locking. This seems like no more of a lockin than, say, choosing a DNS server that's giving me lower
12. 4062.▲
    by staticassertion 8y ago

    Plenty of specialists make > 1m without running a hospital.
13. 4063.▲
    by staticassertion 8y ago

    I think it's worth noting that there's plenty of memory unsafety to be had without dynamic allocation.
14. 4064.▲
    by staticassertion 8y ago

    Totally, that could absolutely be the case. But it probably won't be. The reality is that most C programs do use manual memory management, by a very wide margin.
15. 4065.▲
    by staticassertion 8y ago

    Neat. Doesn't really change anything, except that you aren't required to manually manage memory but, practically speaking, you will end up manually managing memory. Especially if you're choosing C for performance requirem
16. 4066.▲
    by staticassertion 8y ago

    On the surface they're quite similar, I agree. I won't pretend that Firefox has some whole separate UX decision process that's ruining it for me. It is, like all decisions between similar products, a matter of my own pet nit.
17. 4067.▲
    by staticassertion 8y ago

    Not the person you're responding to, but no. Until uMatrix actually breaks for me, I'm not switching to Firefox. Switching is a pain, and I don't like Firefox's UI/UX. I'd switch if they did this because I valu
18. 4068.▲
    by staticassertion 8y ago

    My side project is on lambda. The #1 cost for me is the EC2 service I use for a DB they integrate with, because my lambdas basically don't execute except a few times on the weekend. Nice to not have to worry about patching or updates o
19. 4069.▲
    by staticassertion 8y ago

    > Now I see that you are talking about MEMORY safety which I'm not. Writing safe programs includes so much more than just memory safety. Yes, what rust claims is memory safety, not safety from all forms of bugs. If you don't wa
20. 4070.▲
    by staticassertion 8y ago

    > Wrap around is one of the leading causes of security issues in all software. A wrap around on its own can not cause unsafety in rust, only panics. As in, maybe you try to use the wrapped integer as an array index, that's still saf
21. 4071.▲
    by staticassertion 8y ago

    Alternatively, Python could easily be argued as being radically unsafe compared to Rust, given the many, many libraries that call out to C and the ease of exploiting C libraries loaded by CPython. https://hackernoon.com/pyth
22. 4072.▲
    by staticassertion 8y ago

    Not really, no. His point was that fundamentally Rust will have overhead by being safe, and that it's necessary to drop into unsafe to match the performance of C++. He takes this further, stating that if you're going to drop into
23. 4073.▲
    by staticassertion 8y ago

    I'm reluctant to comment because the first iteration of this 'series' was fraught with blatant errors, from what I recall. > Rewriting it is way, way too expensive, risky, and, honestly, doesn't seem to make sense ex
24. 4074.▲
    by staticassertion 8y ago

    And home made yogurt tastes sooooooo good.
25. 4075.▲
    by staticassertion 8y ago

    > And that'd be a totally useful way of looking at it if most real Rust programs didn't have any "abnormal" (unsafe) code in them. They do, though, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of Rust code (outside
26. 4076.▲
    by staticassertion 8y ago

    > But disputing a valid payment is nothing more than theft. I'm always happy to steal from companies that turn my free trials into subscriptions. I'd steal more if I could. You're coming at this as if the service provider
27. 4077.▲
    by staticassertion 8y ago

    Same. I build a project in my free time and I was pretty surprised to see my bill was 99% NAT Gateways and a few hundred dollars. A free tier for NAT gateways would go a very long way. I wonder why they wouldn't have one.
28. 4078.▲
    by staticassertion 8y ago

    Yes, I'm the author of that thread. It went nowhere.
29. 4079.▲
    by staticassertion 8y ago

    NPM announced support for 2FA and read-only tokens soon after the incident. https://blog.npmjs.org/post/166039777883/protect-your-npm-ac... Can't say I'm aware of any other package manager even discussin
30. 4080.▲
    by staticassertion 8y ago

    There aren't really simple data structures that involve pointers. Pointers are just hard (where hard means they require programmers to hold state in their head), and rust makes that explicit. The reality is that implementing data struc