vbrandl

8 ms·

31.
by vbrandl 6y ago
Some esoteric programming languages designed for code golfing do exactly that.
32.
by vbrandl 6y ago
I guess you are talking about this `Visitor` trait [0]. I have only used serde in combination with the derive macros so please enlighten me, but each `visit_* ` function of the `Visitor` trait already takes a typed value (`bool`, integer ty
33.
by vbrandl 6y ago
Is there anything that can be achieved by using the visitor pattern [0], that cannot be done by using pattern matching? I have only used the visitor pattern in languages that do not have pattern matching as a language feature (e.g. Java bef
34.
by vbrandl 6y ago
Instead of `cargo clean`, `touch src/main.rs` or `touch src/lib.rs` (or actually touching any source file and thereby changing the `last modified` date to now) will have the same effect. That's what I've been using.
35.
by vbrandl 6y ago
I tend to check every script I write using shellcheck[0]. This will detect if a script starts with `#!/usr/bin/env sh` but uses bash or zsh features. Never had a problem an never thought much about it. [0]: https:/&#x2F
36.
by vbrandl 6y ago
You can define a trait and add an blanket implementation of that trait for `Fn()` Somewhat like this: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio... Edit: updated playground link
37.
by vbrandl 6y ago
Having implemented rudimentary ZUGFeRD support at $dayjob a few years ago (our main product is sending, receiving and validating invoices for energy companies in Germany), I don't see ZUGFeRD becoming relevant anytime soon. At least fo
38.
by vbrandl 6y ago
If the order of changes does not matter and identifiers do not depend on previous changes, ist there still a way to uniquely identify a specific set of changes? With git, I like to include the commit ref in release binaries which is great f
39.
by vbrandl 6y ago
Idris is an other example for a programming language that always terminates. For that matter any total functional programming language does and is therefore turing incomplete.
40.
by vbrandl 6y ago
By that logic, you can't use any open source software...
41.
by vbrandl 6y ago
AFAIK Actix always worked on stable Rust. I have a hobby project[0] running on Actix. A few days ago I updated from 2.* to 3.* and apart from one minor bug in a middleware (which seems to be fixed by now), everything worked without problems
42.
by vbrandl 6y ago
I agree that advertisement should show why a product is good for the problem it solves and not why the problem should be solved. My previous comment was meant as a motivation to you, to market your (presumably good) product, even if it is n
43.
by vbrandl 6y ago
The first two paragraphs sound as if you'd love "99 francs" (novel or movie, the movie captures the novel quite well IMO). It's about the topic of marketing and advertisement from the perpective of a creative producing a
44.
by vbrandl 6y ago
In general there is nothing wrong with marketing an interior product. It may be cheaper or more promising than the market leader but the customer is still able to decide for themselves. That said, it gets bad as soon as you market something
45.
by vbrandl 6y ago
There is some cool stuff for OCaml, that is not (yet) possible in Rust, e.g. building a unikernel using MirageOS ( https://mirage.io/ )
46.
by vbrandl 6y ago
Also any MITM can inject JS code that will be executed in the users browser.
47.
by vbrandl 6y ago
I would grant that point if PHP's main focus weren't web applications. One would expect the language to bring everything you'd need to build a web application. (again: maybe that's just my perception of PHP but I don&#x2
48.
by vbrandl 6y ago
I never used PHP so correct me if I'm missing something here, but "you need to use a framework to build good applications in PHP" (which kinda implies that it is hard/impossible otherwise) doesn't sound like an argu
49.
by vbrandl 6y ago
Clap (the argument parser in discussion) does a little more: parsing to correct types, colorful output, generation of shell completions and man pages, fuzzy matching (did you mean X?) and so on. That aside, I don't know why clap in par
50.
by vbrandl 6y ago
Many bugs in "overly complex crypto-stacks" are more like "complexity to decrypt was reduced by X%". If it took a regular attacker 1,000,000 years to crack the encryption, it now takes only 900,000 years. So if you are n
51.
by vbrandl 6y ago
Shouldn't the fact that there are exploitation frameworks for that specific attack vector (e.g. https://beefproject.com/ ) be motivation enough to not leave that vector unpatched?
52.
by vbrandl 6y ago
Any man in the middle might inject JavaScript in the request and hijack the user's browser.
53.
by vbrandl 7y ago
This looks really cool, but the UI is unusable on mobile for me. The layout is broken and therefore many texts cannot be read. I will check this out once I'm back at my laptop.
54.
by vbrandl 7y ago
The actor model also gives you a good amount of isolation between your contexts (no public API, just async message passing). It gives you the advantage of running everything on a single node as long as it's feasible without having to g
55.
by vbrandl 7y ago
In 2011 a PoC virus was described, that was a polyglot JS, VBS, Batch and MatLab: https://github.com/SPTHvx/SPTH/blob/master/articles/files/xs...
56.
by vbrandl 7y ago
This reminded me of dead drops: https://deaddrops.com/
57.
by vbrandl 7y ago
> You would need to invest an enormous amount of hashpower to create so many blocks that the difficulty adjustment could ratchet down Thanks for the clarification. I don't know much about the difficulty adjustment algorithm of bitco
58.
by vbrandl 7y ago
But this means that there is a trusted party involved: the bootstrap nodes. Those might not exist anymore in the future. If they don't, the key cannot be released anymore? In my opinion something like this must not depend on the online
59.
by vbrandl 7y ago
I only skimmed the post, but referring to the blackbox approach with some blockchain as trustless clock: Given the black box was created when block X was the current one and is defined to release the key some N days later, so ca. (N * 144)
60.
by vbrandl 7y ago
Hashing is a separate problem from encryption. There is no proof that one way functions (the idea behind hashing) even exist (by proving this, you would actually prove P!=NP, IIRC). Encryption has a slightly better track record of being bro

More ›