Comments by "" (@diadetediotedio6918) on "Mental Outlaw"
channel.
-
101
-
85
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
19
-
14
-
12
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@anon_y_mousse
First, I was responding to your comment about novice C programmers being wiser than Rust ones, and responding in general as well.
Next, I didn't make any pointless arguments, the fact that you have little knowledge about economics does not make you oblivious to the consequences of this lack of knowledge, if a company the size of Microsoft (a literal corporation) and with the amount of information that she has (which is quite broad) is saying that most of her security bugs came from memory errors (and she is saying that), so we very likely have good reason to think prima facie that these languages create a favorable environment for this kind of bug. A lot of the linux kernel bugs are due to things like that too, many of which could have been avoided with a safer tool like Rust (or not, after all, we have to test things before we know they will work).
The argument that the creator of linux would be considering adopting the language in his dear kernel just because of "pressure" is completely irrational, that yes, it's just a cheap complaint and you're disregarding all the informational scope that Linus himself should already have considered when accepting to include the language in the development. He's not stupid, he's not doing things by simple pressure, that didn't even happen with C++, which has one of the most toxic communities I've ever seen in my life, and it wouldn't happen with Rust.
The point is, we use magnetic screwdrivers to avoid the mistake of dropping a screw, yet experienced people rarely drop a screw using an ordinary screwdriver. We use cars with smart sensors to avoid crashing, yet good drivers are unlikely to crash using a car without these sensors. We consider taking precautionary measures on our own future actions with insurance and the like, even though we are very confident that we will not go wrong, and we take precautions even though we are experts in our fields. Science has checks because even the greatest investigators can make obvious and crass mistakes. We use safety equipment even though good workers will probably never have an accident. Even the best doctors use better equipment even if the old equipment did the trick, just to lessen the possibility of an error.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that a programmer, even the greatest and most experienced programmer in the entire world (who, by the way, won't live forever), won't make mistakes, that's innocence, that actually borders on complete insanity, and using a tool that reduces the propensity for silly mistakes (and even serious mistakes) to occur is just a natural step in technological evolution.
And make no mistake, maybe Rust is not that tool that will prevent serious security errors from happening, maybe the language doesn't work for that and everyone who says it works is completely wrong, who knows? The idea is that if we never try something new, we will forever make the same mistakes. If Rust doesn't work, let's build something better and test it again, if that doesn't work, again, and again, we'll keep going, until we've found a way to effectively make working people's lives safer, even if for a small margin, that's progress.
2
-
2