Re:Would Rust have prevented Heartbleed? Another look
by tptacek on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @05:30PM
(#9221662)
Golang has possibly the best TLS library implemented in any language. Maybe you instead mean that nobody would drop a Golang TLS library into a C program, but that they might do that with a Rust TLS library? That's truey, but not particularly interesting. Most languages can't be dropped easily into C programs.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Would Rust have prevented Heartbleed? Another look
by pcwalton on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @06:43PM
(#9222154)
> That's truey, but not particularly interesting. Most languages can't be dropped easily into C programs.
I don't see how the fact that most languages can't be dropped into C programs makes the fact that Rust can not interesting. It seems to me to imply the opposite.
Re:Would Rust have prevented Heartbleed? Another look
by tptacek on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @10:28PM
(#9223228)
Fair enough! I just get itchy at this refrain about Rust rewriting OpenSSL because again: Golang crypto/tls is an achievement. It is a seriously nice piece of code. It didn't need a uniquely great language (golang isn't that), just a uniquely talented TLS implementor.
Re:Would Rust have prevented Heartbleed? Another look
by tsuraan on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @05:56PM
(#9221846)
Making a library that can be linked into a C program is interesting because it can also be linked into a program written in pretty much any language. OpenSSL is awful, but it has bindings to pretty much any language that you want, so it's very commonly used. Go's TLS will never have that, but one implemented in Rust could.