News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Rustproofing Linux (Part 1/4 Leaking Addresses) (2023). Parent comment

Re:Rustproofing Linux (Part 1/4 Leaking Addresses) (2023) by stouset on Tuesday August 27, 2024 @06:36PM (#41373980)
Why try to improve anything when you could just keep the original implementation around for forever?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rustproofing Linux (Part 1/4 Leaking Addresses) (2023) by throwawaymaths on Tuesday August 27, 2024 @08:28PM (#41374805)
As they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rustproofing Linux (Part 1/4 Leaking Addresses) (2023) by stouset on Tuesday August 27, 2024 @10:20PM (#41375379)
The evidence that C is broke is pretty overwhelming at this point.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rustproofing Linux (Part 1/4 Leaking Addresses) (2023) by atoav on Wednesday August 28, 2024 @06:20AM (#41377943)
For varying definitions of "not broke".

Thinking about my uncle, running Windows 97 in his company.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rustproofing Linux (Part 1/4 Leaking Addresses) (2023) by akira2501 on Wednesday August 28, 2024 @05:21AM (#41377628)
The El Camino was supposed to be an improvement. A combination between a car and a truck. It turns out it was not an improvement. It's better to just have a car or a truck. Cutting them in half and then weirdly stitching the two parts together creates a Frankenstein nightmare of bad engineering. Which even the best explanations on the planet can't fix.
[ Parent | on HN ]