staticassertion

14 ms·

421.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I thought they were suggesting the stdlib be dynamically linked or something, at which point it would be. But for static linking, no.
422.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
Yeah I'm not really convinced that this matters at all tbh
423.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I've been writing rust for over a decade and I've been quite active in the community at times. I've barely even heard of the rust foundation, let alone seen suggestions to donate.
424.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I assume this is hugely beneficial for research on intervention methods, not for treatment. I think everyone is focusing on "I'd rather know" but imagine if you could get larger populations with a diagnosis earlier on, how im
425.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
First 2 are very legit, as a rust dev myself. I wish Rust had a larger stdlib and every argument against it leaves me pretty unconvinced/ feeling like the arguments could just as easily leave us to believe that "HashMap" shou
426.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
> I still think that's a training/familiarity problem more than a language issue? But that's fine. Even if we say it's a familiarity problem, that's fine. I'm only saying that it's not reasonable to exp
427.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
The parent commenter earlier seems to be implying that it's only a matter of not caring. > care so little about the performance of the code they ship to browsers. > but I'm curious to hear how do you know it for backend cod
428.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
Oh, well yeah, statically linked binaries have that downside. I guess I don't think that's a big deal, but I could maybe imagine on some devices that are heavily constrained that it could be? IDK. Compression is insanely effective
429.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
How much overhead is that? Also, why would that have much overhead? Things deduplicate in memory.
430.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I feel like maybe we're drifting here. You said this: > Well, I am on the provocative side that as AI tooling matures current programming languages will slowly become irrelevant. And I said I disagree because language directly impac
431.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
It was an express server. I don't think c10k is particularly interesting since it mostly just involves having cooperating scheduling. Doesn't really impact flat memory overhead etc. I mean, the binary for node alone, without any l
432.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I can't give you examples, but my experience is that AI does very well with Rust except for cases where a library has a constantly changing API/ has had recent breaking changes. I find that AI does extremely well at "picking
433.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
> - It would be a big deal if Rust did have a safe dynamic linking ABI. Someone should do it. That's the main point I'm making. I don't think deflecting by saying "but C is no safer" is super interesting. I think
434.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I don't get it. What's the chasm here?
435.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
Yes but it's not really fair to expect me to know how to do that. Just because I know how to do it for backend code, where it's often a lot easier to see those copies, doesn't mean I'm just a negligent asshole for not do
436.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I don't think it's the same tbh. In Rust I can often just `rg '\.clone'` and immediately see wins. Allocations are far easier to track statically. I don't have a good sense for "seeing" allocations when I
437.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
> Any tool that can plug into MLIR and use LLVM, can potentically produce fast code. I guess that's sort of technically true, but not even really? Like, obviously you can compile Python to C and then compile that with clang, but it
438.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
> Formal specifications and automated testing, will beat any language specific tooling. I don't understand what you mean. Beat any language at what? Correctness? I don't think that's true at all, but I also don't see
439.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
This is a very shallow, very boring criticism. I doubt it will resonate. Modern C++ does not solve the safety issues, it has plenty of brand new footguns like string_view. Who cares if Go is better than Rust? Feel free to write Go, no one c
440.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I don't agree. For one thing, the language directly impacts things like iteration speed, runtime performance, and portability. For another, there's a trade-off between "verbose, eats context" and "implicit, hard to
441.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
TBH I don't know how to do that work. If I'm in the backend it's very easy for me. I can think about allocations, I can think about threading, concurrency, etc, so easily. In browser land I'm probably picking up some con
442.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I had a script in another language. It was node, took up >200MB of RAM that I wanted back. "claude, rewrite this in rust". 192MB of memory returned to me.
443.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
> If I can cause a server to not serve requests to anyone else in the world by sending a well crafted set of bytes, that’s absolutely a vulnerability because it can completely disable critical systems. Well obviously I reject that, right
444.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
Feel free to think that I'm lying or whatever. This is just armchair psychologizing. This has nothing to do with aggressors or victims. A hypothesis has been provided to explain the data we have, the hypothesis was rejected because it
445.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
The linux kernel does the opposite, they do not believe in security vulnerabilities. That's why if you mention "security" in a patch, Linus will reject it.
446.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
> so can you. I don't feel obligated to provide evidence based on some vague suspicion about "verified" accounts. If they want to find it, go ahead. Why is that such a heavy ask? Here, https://www.reddit.com&#x2
447.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
Nothing from me! Sorry but I don't really think I'm obligated to support that claim. edit: Here, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47102818 That's the absolute most I'll do for you. Go find your own e
448.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
If you're submitting a CVE for a primitive that seems likely to be useful for further exploitation, mark it as such. That's not the case for ReDOS or the vast majority of DoS, it's already largely the case that you'd m
449.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I don't believe that's the history here but I could be wrong. The history is that CIA encompasses availability, which it shouldn't. Regardless, I don't think it matters. If you truly believe your DoS may be a likely priv
450.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I think this is just sort of the wrong framing. Yes, a plane having a DoS is a critical failure. But it's critical at the level where you're considering broader scopes than just the impact of a local bug. I don't think this f

More ›