News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:We build X.509 chains so you don't have to by blibble on Thursday January 25, 2024 @12:20PM (#39132012)
This reasoning doesn't make sense.

I didn't say it didn't help at all, I said I wouldn't expect it to make a significant improvement over Java

(and it's hardly the strongest type system with "developer ergonomics")

Re:We build X.509 chains so you don't have to by k8svet on Thursday January 25, 2024 @12:43PM (#39132243)
I'm not even that good at writing Rust and even I recognize that countless libs I'm using are written in a way, with Rust types, that prevent serious mis-use. In ways that would be infeasible and unergonomic in other languages, or require internal library invariant assertions that are prone to bugs.

Sometimes the errors wind up being nasty, but I've also gotten better at trusting that the compiler is giving me helpful info, even if it's a huge message. And usually those errors indicate some library invariant that I've missed that the type system is enforcing.

Re:We build X.509 chains so you don't have to by blibble on Thursday January 25, 2024 @01:15PM (#39132601)
yes, hence my comment on SML

while it's nice that the rest of the world is slowly waking up to type systems functional programmers have been bleating on about for the past four decades

... having read through the first couple of pages of bc vulns: even a much stronger type system than rust provides wouldn't appear to help very much in this specific example

however if someone wants to rewrite OpenSSL in Rust that would be a massive massive improvement

Re:We build X.509 chains so you don't have to by nindalf on Thursday January 25, 2024 @05:04PM (#39136015)
> however if someone wants to rewrite OpenSSL in Rust

You mean rustls?

Re:We build X.509 chains so you don't have to by camkego on Friday January 26, 2024 @05:52AM (#39141182)
Lacking DTLS at this time, and probably a few other valuable things.