@rotnroll666 @dl1ely Or how about statically typed, functional languages such as Haskell? Or maybe OCaml?
@rotnroll666 @dl1ely Obviously, performance is a major concern, so I can understand many languages are not an option. How about Rust? Go?
1
@poutsma I agree. But you can reduce the potential for exploits by making a choice.
Maybe, just maybe, it’s just irresponsible to write a security lib in C or C++. That argument never felt as convincing as today.
2
10
8
@argorak Don’t tweet that! Some poor soul will google for them, the poor bastards. This stuff is best forgotten, as quickly as possible.
Brilliant: “Here are the cases for and against vaccinating children” theonion.com/articles/the-pr…
4
4
@robelliot266 I’m not sure. I think part of the (admittedly weak) joke is that you wonder on April 2 how you could ever have believed it.
1
I have to admit I actually believed the INFRA-7524 story. In fact, I still find it entirely plausible.
1
1
1
@mtnygard I can’t either, but it’s probably true that a security lib is a particularly bad place for too much legacy-related complexity
1
@mtnygard Right. But a security lib especially strikes me as the sort of thing that gets a lot of value from a decade or two of bug fixes
2
@mtnygard Well, you know about Things You Should Never Do (Part I): joelonsoftware.com/articles/…
1
1
Excellent article: “Five Reasons Not To Raise Venture Capital” modelviewculture.com/pieces/…
3
5
@vdandre I was always impressed by its ability to recreate an iTunes-style app in the browser. I just don’t know why you’d want that :-)
1
@pvblivs Mail und interner Chat ist nicht das Gleiche. Da muss ja jedem Depp bewusst sein, dass der AG mitlesen kann.
2