News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Rust: 128 bit integers preparing to be released. Parent comment

Re:Rust: 128 bit integers preparing to be released by eropple on Sunday December 04, 2016 @04:44AM (#13099407)
IP addresses are used like integers all the time. Ask your friendly neighborhood sysadmin how a network mask works.

(Maybe you want to foreach over an array every time you want to apply one. I'd rather not.)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust: 128 bit integers preparing to be released by CuriousSkeptic on Sunday December 04, 2016 @06:19AM (#13099608)
I realize integer has rather specific meaning in this context. But really, your comment just highlights the issue.

In my world integer is a mathematical construct with no particular representation, making things like bitmasks and or shifts nonsensical.

If you really want to work with fixed length bitstrings why not just have a type for that? Operating on a string of 128-bits should be valid on all such bitstrings no matter wether those represent a number or a string of code points.

And equally operations on integers should not care about particular bitstrings representations of the number in question.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust: 128 bit integers preparing to be released by eropple on Sunday December 04, 2016 @06:36AM (#13099654)
> In my world integer is a mathematical construct with no particular representation

Your world doesn't map to the reality of silicon and registers, whereas Rust does. As it happens, you can be fixed much more easily than the whole of modern computing.

> If you really want to work with fixed length bitstrings why not just have a type for that?

I don't. I want to work with integers. An IPv6 address is not the hex format that you read--it is a 128-bit integer. You can go read RFC 2460 if you don't believe me, but it's true. It is an integer that I can add and subtract from; I don't add 1 to an octet of an IP address and then do a bunch of carries if I want the next IP address in my network, I add 1 to the IP address. I don't perform some magic operation to determine what a subnet looks like, I bitand the integer. They are inescapably based on the representation used both by my computer and by my network hardware. (As is the performance of both my network hardware and yours. There's a reason that your router doesn't use BCD or whatever.)

There are programming languages that do not represent the underlying system. They are, for the most part, bad at dealing with the kinds of problems Rust is tailored to effectively represent. You can use those. It's pretty presumptuous to suggest that languages designed for lower-level problems accommodate your peculiarity.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust: 128 bit integers preparing to be released by fnj on Sunday December 04, 2016 @06:43AM (#13099665)
Not really. They are never added, subtracted, multiplied, or divided. They are never compared for greater-than or less-than. Possibly they are compared for equality.

About the only mathematical operations I can think of which are ever done to them are bitwise-anding, bitwise-inclusive-oring, and testing for zero (and, as mentioned, equality).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust: 128 bit integers preparing to be released by eropple on Sunday December 04, 2016 @06:44AM (#13099670)
Yes, really. I mean, I add to IP addresses regularly. How else do you enumerate a subnet (like, what do you think nmap does)? How else do you place, say, twelve machines at 172.17.0.120 through .131? If you're doing string concatenation, you are screwing up. Perhaps it's not enough of a screwup to impact what you do--but definitely wrong enough to impact what I do unless I were to do a lot of extra work in modeling an IP address just for the sake of somebody else's spherical cow of uniform density. (And I do mean work I'd have to do--the lack of a decent IP addressing library on the JVM is a recurring pain in my ass, but since they're just integers...)

If you have internalized an IP address as a dotted set of octets expressed in ASCII digits, that's a problem of comprehension. When you don't, it's pretty natural to just use this stuff like any other integer.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust: 128 bit integers preparing to be released by baq on Sunday December 04, 2016 @07:26AM (#13099748)
You're not adding addresses together, that doesn't make sense. You're adding ints to addresses, it's a completely different property, even if the representation happens to fit into the same amount of bits. Nothing more than a convenient coincidence.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust: 128 bit integers preparing to be released by eropple on Sunday December 04, 2016 @08:24AM (#13099896)
You're right, I'm not adding addresses together. If you read my post, I say I'm adding to addresses, which you do to--now hold onto your hat--find the next one in sequence. And that, quite obviously, works because they are integers and map to an address space that matches the complete space, from 0x00000000 to 0xFFFFFFFF (and the equivalent 128-bit space for IPv6) of their bit length. It's not "a convenient coincidence". It's the definition of the thing in question.

It's like saying a pointer to RAM isn't an integer. Of course it is, and you add to them every time you de-reference an array in C. That it has additional semantic meaning doesn't mean it stops being a integer. The pedantry you're peddling doesn't fly.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust: 128 bit integers preparing to be released by FreeFull on Sunday December 04, 2016 @12:15PM (#13100668)
I think what baq is saying is that IP addresses are torsors http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/torsors.html . It makes sense to give them a type where you can't add two IP addresses to each other (but you can still subtract to get an integer, and add integers).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust: 128 bit integers preparing to be released by eropple on Sunday December 04, 2016 @05:05PM (#13102027)
Sure, fine, but it'll still be an i128 somewhere, yeah? Like, you can put whatever abstraction you want on it, I still need to directly poke those bits and treat it in all ways as fundamentally the same thing as an integer, defined in those terms in order to use integral operations upon them, at the levels that somebody who's worrying about them has to care about. (Also, look at halomru's post for reasons one might intentionally add and subtract addresses from one another in the first place, which kind of holes this argument.)

That is a cool link though, I'm gonna give it a deeper read.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust: 128 bit integers preparing to be released by halomru on Sunday December 04, 2016 @08:47AM (#13099965)
>They are never compared for greater-than or less-than.

    if ip >= IP(10.34.12.3) && ip <= IP(10.34.12.9)
        //is one of our database servers
> They are never added, subtracted,

    if abs(atk1.ip - atk2.ip) < 16
        //same source likely, modify threshold
Netmask are useful, but sometimes doing regular math is a better fit for your problem. Adding an integer to an IP, subtracting IPs or comparing IPs all yield meaningful results.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust: 128 bit integers preparing to be released by hroi on Sunday December 04, 2016 @09:38AM (#13100100)
What is your point? u32/u128 are not mathematical integers. They are actually bit strings, just like IP addresses and unlike mathematical integers.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust: 128 bit integers preparing to be released by Ericson2314 on Sunday December 04, 2016 @09:48AM (#13100128)
They are mathematical cyclic groups!
[ Parent | on HN ]