Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Reasons not to use Rust

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-08 12:21

- You think programming languages should be closed and proprietary
- You like random pauses caused by forced collection of the garbage
- You think program start-up should take minutes so you use stupid VM-languages instead
- You like broken features and memory corruption
- You sell hardware and want to deploy inefficient scripting languages only to sell more
- You only do pure programs that don't interact with the world
- You are a retard who doesn't understand the concept of ownership

Anything else?

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 2:58

>>25
The Rust implementation is open source. Because of this it is absolutely possible to know what a piece of code does without relying on human interpretation.

No one has ever produced a widely useful language in the way you are proposing.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 4:55

>>26
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 5:02

>>26
The GCC implementation is open source. Because of this it is absolutely possible to know what a piece of code does without relying on human interpretation.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 6:42

>>27
I fail to see what is so humorous.

>>28
Please speak your point clearly.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 6:58

>>29
The 28th Post implementation is open source. Because of this it is absolutely possible to know what a piece of text does without relying on human interpretation.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 7:21

>>30
This doesn't make any sense. Do you think you're being clever. You aren't.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 7:27

>>31 The failure is the opensource==safe+obvious reasoning
The (Rust,C,C++,Brainfuck,Unlambda,Malbolge) implementation is open source. Because of this it is absolutely possible to know what a piece of code does without relying on human interpretation.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 7:39

Stop piping your posts through a one way function!

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 7:50

>>33
The reasoning X is A doesn't lead to X is B, because A doesn't lead to B.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 7:55

>>34
Ok. Now what is X, A, and B?

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 8:02

>>35 X=Rust A=OpenSource B=Security

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 8:26

>>36
Ok. Now how is this statement related to >>26?

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 8:37

>>37 Its a condensed form of >>26
The Rust implementation is open source. Because of this it is absolutely possible to know what a piece of code does without relying on human interpretation.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 9:17

>>38
But the implementation can change arbitrarily and without warning, obviously. The NSA can always sneak a couple of backdoors in if they feel the language threatens their power.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 9:32

>>39 If security means "lack of obvious backdoors" you're terribly misguided. Security means the code is proven secure(e.g. CompCert , Ada Spark). Have "open-source" C code that "sorta does what it claims to do" is not a form of security. Open source doesn't make the code secure.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 9:57

>>40
It is you who is misguided. Security does mean lack of backdoors. What you are talking about, on the other hand, is correctness, or, more precisely, the formal verification of correctness.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 10:04

>>41 "Security does mean lack of backdoors."
Software with exploits, buffer overflows, data corruption and crashes every time it get a bad packet is now secure. (/prog/ security experts , 2015)

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 10:06

>>42
With exploits? No. Otherwise, yeah, it would be secure. In fact, most of the software considered secure today is chock-full of data corruption, crashes, glitches etc, exactly because people care more about security than they care about correctness.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 10:11

>>43 It is very lax definition of security, on par with "it compiles".
read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security#Security_concepts

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 10:36

>>44
While you're wikipedia hunting, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_security
Application security (short: AppSec) encompasses measures taken throughout the code's life-cycle to prevent gaps in the security policy of an application or the underlying system (vulnerabilities) through flaws in the design, development, deployment, upgrade, or maintenance of the application.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 10:39

>>45 So? Flaws in the design== incorrect design==insecure app
flaws in the design, development, deployment, upgrade, or maintenance of the application.
Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode + RSS -