aren't rockets like the starship almost the opposite of what you want in a space station? They want to minimize the integrity of the rocket as much as possible (without blowing up) to reduce the mass while for a station you want robustness (for pressure & impacts).
garage devs have told me of 10PiB+ deployments in production, but I've never operated one at that scale so I can't share much insight into the experience. Probably best to ask on their matrix chat.
That's unfortunate, I really preferred Whisky to crossover purely for the UX, I would happily pay for a crossover license if i got to keep the whisky app itself, crossover's ui is archaic and ugly in comparison.
There are similar approaches, ie: Checked-C which work surprisingly well. However, I'm not sure that this approach would be expressive enough to handle the edge cases of C craziness and pointer arithmetic. There's more to memory unsafety than writing to unallocated memory, even forcing a write to slightly wrong memory (ie setting `is_admin = true`) can be catastrophic.
Right, but a memory unsafety but is what takes a harmless logic bug in an image parser with no filesystem access to an RCE and sandbox escape.
Memory unsafety allows you to change the 'category' of the bug, you become free to do whatever whereas a logic bug forces to to work within the (flawed) logic of the original program.
> Honestly at this point I’ve given in and am now advocating that we rewrite every damned widget from scratch in Rust, because by the time we’re mostly done, my career will be winding down, and seeing that shit still gets pwned like, exactly as much, will be “good TV”.
Rust won't solve logic bugs but it can help bring up the foundations. So long as memory safety bugs are so pervasive we can't even properly reason on a theoretical level about logic bugs. The core theorem of any type system is "type safety" which states that a well-typed program never goes wrong (gets stuck, aka UB). Only then can you properly tackle correctness issues.
> Rust is cool because Haskell Lego Edition is better than no Haskell at all, and Rust is cool because now that it’s proven affine/linear typing can work, someone will probably get it right soon.
I don't understand the condescending remarks about "Haskell Lego Edition".
I do agree that Rust has shown that substructural type systems work and are useful, and that they will be a 'theme' in the next batch of languages (or I can hope).
Rust is used in production though at large companies: Amazon, Microsoft, Mozilla, etc... I would be highly surprised that the borrowchecker would be the reason code couldn't ship in the first place, once you get over the initial mental hurdles it's usually a non-issue.
Besides equivocating between a pervasively unsafe-by-default language and one with an explicit bounded opt-in is a little disingenuous. Time after time, it has been shown that even expert C developers cannot write memory safe C consistently, each line of code is a chance to blow up your entire app's security.
Not to go all 'Rust Evangelism Strike Force' but almost universally, these exploits leverage memory unsafety somewhere in the stack, usually in a parser of some kind (image, text, etc). The fact that this is still tolerated in our core systems is a pox on our industry. You don't have to use Rust, and it won't eliminate every bug (far from it), but memory safety is not optional.
We truly need to work more towards eliminating every memory unsafe language in use today, until then we're fighting a forest fire with a bucket of water.
from what I've seen I had the impression that Yinyang k-means was the best way to take advantage of the sparsity.