• 2 Posts
  • 524 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 24th, 2023

help-circle

  • I think you’re being way too harsh.

    1. His recommendations to disable debug info and PIC are not “bad”. He isn’t suggesting that should be the default. He actually only suggested that split debug info should be made the default on Linux which is a sensible suggestion.
    2. There are gazillions of other posts talking about codegen-units, cranelift and so on. I don’t think we need a repeat (though he could have linked to them).

    The focus on linking was because this post is introducing his liker project.

    OP ignore this naysayer.


  • would not be considered bugs but maybe change requests.

    That’s just playing with semantics. They are clearly bugs. They are literally called “defect reports”.

    Without a spec how would you argue that a system/product is safe?

    1. Lots of testing, including randomised testing and ideally formal verification.
    2. Comprehensive test coverage - both code coverage (lines, branches) and functional coverage (hand written properties).
    3. Functional safety features (ECC, redundancy, error reporting & recovery, etc.)
    4. Engineering practices known to reduce the chance of bugs (strong static types, version control, CI & nightly tests, rigorous engineering processes - requirement tracking and so on, and yes ideally well written specifications for all the tools you are using).

    There are many aspects to safety and it’s definitely a good idea to have a spec for a language, but it doesn’t automatically mean safety is impossible without it.

    Software in itself cannot be safe or unsafe because without hardware it cannot do anything.

    The nice thing about abstraction is that you can talk about software without considering the hardware, more or less. If one says “this software is safe”, it means it’s safe assuming it’s running on working hardware.

    It doesn’t always hold up - sometimes the abstraction leaks, e.g. for things like spectre and rowhammer. And there are sometimes performance concerns. But it’s pretty good.



  • It’s not because we have tested this program extensively on every C++ compiler, but because the language rules of C++ say so.

    Debatable. Saying things in a prose specification doesn’t magically make them happen. Tests and reference models can though.

    I also don’t really agree with the SIL requirements that languages need to have rigorous specifications to be safe. Clearly it’s better if they do, but would your rather fly on a rocket controlled by C code or Rust code?

    IMO a specification would be really nice to have, but it main purpose is to tick a certification checkbox, which is why the only one that exists was written specifically for that purpose.







  • asking the maintainers to lock down APIs which the C devs purposefully leave malleable, in part, to avoid binary blob drivers being feasible.

    No, they were asking them to define the semantics of the filesystem APIs. Those semantics are not encoded in the C API but the Rust devs wanted to encode them in the Rust API to avoid making mistakes.

    The C devs didn’t want to, not because of concerns about binary drivers, but because the semantics are already broken. Apparently different filesystem drivers assume different semantics for the same functions and it’s a whole mess. They don’t want to face up to this and certainly don’t want anyone pointing it out, so clearly it must be the Rust devs’ fault for wanting APIs to have consistent semantics.

    The rest of your comment is nonsense.




  • Freeing home energy gear from vendor lock-in. Matter 1.4 adds some big, expensive gear to its list of device types and control powers, and not a moment too soon. Solar inverters and arrays, battery storage systems, heat pumps, and water heaters join the list.

    Yeah I seriously doubt solar inverter providers will sign up to this. Here’s what QCells said when I asked them about an API:

    I’m sure it is possible and we’re in discussions with some providers over opening up to their requirements, but it’s not something we’d offer to individuals unfortunately.

    They view control of their “virtual power plants” as a commercial asset and they don’t want to give it away for free.

    Don’t buy a QCells solar inverter btw. I should have done more research! I believe GivEnergy are less stuck in the 80s but don’t quote me on that.



  • PDF writing isn’t too bad IMO, since you don’t need to understand the whole spec. I’ve written a PDF writer for maps from scratch and it was fairly easy and not too much code.

    PDF reading though… Yeah I’m happy to leave that to people with more time and use their libraries.

    A modern format would be nice, but I don’t think it would be anywhere near nice enough to give up how universal PDF is.



  • Totally depends what you end up working on as a programmer. If it’s web apps, you’ll be totally fine. All you need is basic arithmetic. Writing a game engine? You’ll need to know some basic to moderate matrix maths…

    If you’re doing formal verification using unbounded model checking… good fucking luck.

    On average I would say most programming tasks need very little maths. If you can add and multiply you’ll be fine. Definitely sounds like you’ll be ok.