staticassertion

132 ms·

1. 4441.▲
   by staticassertion 9y ago

   > just as I don't install every package available in OS just in case I'll need later it. But your OS does come with lots of packages and features you may not use.
2. 4442.▲
   by staticassertion 9y ago

   > ren't going to be rewritten because it would take a decade to do. Semi-related question - does anyone know what that would look like? Like if someone were to rewrite v8/Tracemonkey from scratch, what's the cutting edge r
3. 4443.▲
   by staticassertion 9y ago

   > why would it make people switch back to FF? because it's 1% faster than chrome? General responsiveness is definitely something I consider when choosing any tool. 1%? I don't think that's a real number. It can be much fas
4. 4444.▲
   by staticassertion 9y ago

   Lots of extensions are waiting for the stable release before updating.
5. 4445.▲
   by staticassertion 9y ago

   I really doubt that that feature has any performance impact. It looks like a bunch of counters.
6. 4446.▲
   by staticassertion 9y ago

   Is that really such an improvement?
7. 4447.▲
   by staticassertion 9y ago

   What would that look like? How would this prevent me from returning a pointer to a stack frame that no longer exists, just for example? Clearly undefined behavior, but C doesn't seem capable of expressing this safely, with or without
8. 4448.▲
   by staticassertion 9y ago

   That's the thing, it's feels impossible to generalize since this can get pretty arbitrary. The size of the data, how sorted the data already is, what you're processing, etc.
9. 4449.▲
   by staticassertion 9y ago

   I wouldn't expect the cost to offset the impact of having to sort first. But, if you need to process the same data many times, it may be a good idea to sort it up front.
10. 4450.▲
    by staticassertion 9y ago

    You wouldn't have to rewrite Adobe. You could rewrite one component of it (0 cost FFI). That's fair more reasonable. I think Servo is proving that Rust has a lot of potential for slowly replacing a C++ codebase, piece by piece.
11. 4451.▲
    by staticassertion 9y ago

    > In your example, the cause of the collapse would be that developer drove a tank onto the bridge and didn't bother to check the weight limits beforehand. I don't see how, at all, and you haven't addressed how this somehow
12. 4452.▲
    by staticassertion 9y ago

    Really? You accept responsibility? In what way has any developer ever accepted responsibility for bad code? When an engineer is negligent and a bridge collapses, they are responsible - there's a whole system of insurance around it. Whe
13. 4453.▲
    by staticassertion 9y ago

    > C++ shows that in theory you can fix any flaw in an existing programming language as long as you maintain backwards compatibility by simply adding more features. I feel like C++ proves exactly that you can't.
14. 4454.▲
    by staticassertion 9y ago

    Sure... * Most developers are not writing data structures, so optimizing for that seems unnecessary. * There is work and research going into verifying unsafe code * I think historically we can see that most memory safety vulnerabilities are
15. 4455.▲
    by staticassertion 9y ago

    Sorry, I should have said array OOB.
16. 4456.▲
    by staticassertion 9y ago

    And integer out of bounds, and (most) segfaults, and data races, etc
17. 4457.▲
    by staticassertion 9y ago

    People will write awful rust code. The impact of this will not be an attacker's ability to completely take over a system. That's a level of "awful" I'll take.
18. 4458.▲
    by staticassertion 9y ago

    Cool, yeah I see what you're saying - thanks.
19. 4459.▲
    by staticassertion 9y ago

    What part of actors are hard to reason about?
20. 4460.▲
    by staticassertion 9y ago

    > and cloudbleed was their fault, not ragels Meaningless statement - 'fault' in these discussions is impossible to objectively attribute. Is every vulnerability the fault of the developer writing the code, or the tool that faci
21. 4461.▲
    by staticassertion 9y ago

    This is always going to lead to the same place - whether it's the developer's fault or the tool's. The author of this post wants uncompromising safety, ragel does not allow for that - programmer error can introduce memory uns
22. 4462.▲
    by staticassertion 9y ago

    I'm not trying to be rude or smug. I'm trying to extract the meaning from their statement that I feel is conveyed. When you strip down what they're saying, to me, it's just "new is worse".
23. 4463.▲
    by staticassertion 9y ago

    "It's the way we've always done it" is all I hear.
24. 4464.▲
    by staticassertion 9y ago

    Not stupid at all, and something that a lot of people ask. It's not really like that - with reference counting you sort of have multiple 'owners' of a variable, and they all get to 'free' that memory except that &#x
25. 4465.▲
    by staticassertion 9y ago

    Thanks, unfortunately I can't edit the post. :(
26. 4466.▲
    by staticassertion 9y ago

    No CS degree here either. Variables exist in memory, right? But we only need them for some amount of time - then we want our memory back. There are many strategies for this - Java uses a garbage collector to search through memory and reclai
27. 4467.▲
    by staticassertion 9y ago

    Right, but I think when they say "core libraries" they probably mean things like hyper, which are still unstable (though getting closer to stability). That said, a lot of big rust crates have stabilized in the last few months.
28. 4468.▲
    by staticassertion 9y ago

    Check out P?
29. 4469.▲
    by staticassertion 9y ago

    This is all fine for a personal project. The amount that the time you spent optimizing would cost a company is very likely to outweight the cost of scaling hardware.
30. 4470.▲
    by staticassertion 9y ago

    OK, what happens when your power goes out? What happens when a system goes down? Are you including the cost of your infra/ ops team in your server costs? What about the larger upfront investment for hardware, especially over provisione