@132ikl whats the dark blue thing in the bottom middle
@132ikl oh it's suckless terminal
@irieldescent @agmlego @leo c# is just spicy c
cannot tell if meaningful much less true,
my brain isn't very computersingitizededu
a word I made up
just to set a rhyme at you
*clucks like a chicken three times*
@f69ked very real and serious image among us computer folk
@132ikl I'm going back to inputting code via front panel switches.
@132ikl does it mean Java programs never had stability or security issues?
@132ikl by the way, I take the opportunity to link Redox, a unix like operating system in Rust https://www.redox-os.org/
They well explain that some parts are unsafe because they require direct access to memory (so it's really not better than C here) but it's only on small portions and not for all the code. I'm very curious to see how it will evolve 
@solene yes there has never been a java program with a security issue in it (it is literal impossible because it doesnt have direct memory access) and also in rust well its not c but it turns into c when you do unsafe because unsafe actually stands for Undo Numerous Safety Advancement From Early and the { is actually a typo its supposed to be L which stands for Lang so Undo Numerous Safety Advancement From Early Langs which means when you write rust unsafel code you are actually writing c which is why it has direct memory access
Also don't use Rust if you care about not using C, it's not a self-hosting language.
@lanodan i think i will write my next code in cobol :) (it is maintained)
@lanodan The point is not to "not use C" the point is to reduce the amount of unsafe code that we depend upon to be safe. The input to LLVM is generally considered trusted, the input to a rust web service isn't.
It's already been shown that even well established code still has safety issues. (sudo, for one).
Yes, *all* changes to a codebase have the chance of introducing bugs. You can incrementally introduce rust into a project to minimise issues, like what curl is doing.
I don't really care what language people write new code in, as long as it's safe (no UB) by default and has a clear marker of what is safe and unsafe. C/C++ fail this.
Rust isn't the only language with this property, though.
And Rust is depending on OpenSSL and so far I haven't heard that rusttls is good so if you would really want a web server to be secure you'd better use Go instead, which is fully self-hosting, as in no C dependencies in the standard library, not just the compiler.
Rustls (and its dependencies) have been audited: https://jbp.io/2020/06/14/rustls-audit.html
that's actually what's going to replace the TLS in Apache. mod_ssl is C (presumably), but mod_tls uses rustls instead of openssl.
Yes, ring does have C code in it (looks like it's from the BoringSSL project). Unfortunate, but pure rust crypto does exist. The point is to keep unsafe to a minimum, so instead of needing to audit 100% of a codebase for memory safety bugs, you need to audit 5%.
@132ikl I find this hilarious! 😂
I mean I think it's pretty obvious it's meant to be in jest, but it's funny because it's true.
@132ikl I don't disagree with the sentiments, but I'm not sure you can extrapolate what we know today to what was known about in the early 1970s when C came about - it feels a bit like hindsight.
I mean, it was meant as an improvement to BCPL (or, a variant of it) - and to be fair, it was an improvement on BCPL and its variant, it's just that we know a lot more nowadays.
@132ikl It's outrageous I'm thinking about inventing a better programming language now