Re:Static Typing for Ruby: Adopting Sorbet at Scale
by Indy9000 on Friday November 20, 2020 @02:25PM
(#25163905)
What makes Ruby so irreplaceable? Why struggle to make it something it's not when you could pick an existing statically typed language and build your system?
Also how is Ruby a safe language for financial transactions when an engineer can hijack a running process and change memory without leaving a trace
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Static Typing for Ruby: Adopting Sorbet at Scale
by jameskilton on Friday November 20, 2020 @02:29PM
(#25163943)
What makes millions of lines of code and decades of knowledge irreplaceable?
Is there any language or ecosystem that can protect against a rogue employee?
Re:Static Typing for Ruby: Adopting Sorbet at Scale
by fmakunbound on Friday November 20, 2020 @02:29PM
(#25163950)
> hijack a running process and change memory without leaving a trace
Doesn't sound like a Ruby problem.
Re:Static Typing for Ruby: Adopting Sorbet at Scale
by Indy9000 on Friday November 20, 2020 @03:40PM
(#25164701)
No but, Ruby makes it trivial. No decompilations, no assembly, no debuggers necessary. Drop into an irb in a running process, change stuff and get out in seconds
Re:Static Typing for Ruby: Adopting Sorbet at Scale
by viraptor on Friday November 20, 2020 @07:04PM
(#25166643)
Compilation is not a security control. Also if you're handling transactions at a significant rate, PCI (with all its problems) makes sure there's a trace.
Re:Static Typing for Ruby: Adopting Sorbet at Scale
by vinceguidry on Friday November 20, 2020 @07:16PM
(#25166729)
> drop into an irb in a running process
This is a thing?
Re:Static Typing for Ruby: Adopting Sorbet at Scale
by zeckalpha on Friday November 20, 2020 @09:00PM
(#25167309)
It also is a thing in most other languages, including C, Python, Java, Erlang, ...
Re:Static Typing for Ruby: Adopting Sorbet at Scale
by vinceguidry on Saturday November 21, 2020 @02:57PM
(#25172334)
I'm not so sure. You can certainly attach a debugger to any running process. But that's not what parent was suggesting. He was saying anyone could attach a REPL. That's a totally different animal.
It's your own dumb fault if you expose the web-console or similar on production.