 to security depends on an ecosystem that follows the same
approach. To think that this is more than an utopic dream is to enter cuckoo-
land in my opinion. So we digress back to the castles-built-on-top-of-sand.

There's millions of lines of code written in unsafe languages plus all
mainstream operating systems. The Rust approach will never work in this sort
of environment.

An approach that _might_ work however is unikernels and using a language that
promotes design with failures in mind [and makes it extremely easy to rapidly
rearchitect/rebuild/redeploy]. Erlang is the best example in my view, but
there could be more.

Alas, Rust is not really suitable for this either due to its static nature.

~~~
dang
Your comments in this thread have been inflammatory, condescending, and vague.
That amounts to trolling, whether you intended to or not. You've done it quite
a bit in previous threads, too, which is not good. Please don't do this on HN.

Here is how to stop: (1) take out everything inflammatory ("It boggles the
mind how utterly misguided", etc.) and make neutral statements instead; (2)
take out the personal language ("you just don't get it", etc.); (3) replace
vague grand claims with specific factual statements.

If you do this, you'll not only no longer be breaking the HN guidelines,
you'll also be sharing what you know more effectively, which benefits all of
us.

We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11162577](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11162577)
and marked it off-topic.

------
armitron
It boggles the mind how utterly misguided the "let's rewrite everything in
Rust!" people are when it comes to understanding security and its
implications.

Let me begin by introducing my premise: Rust will do NOTHING for security, it
is not an improvement in any way, and at least as far as security is
concerned, it will lead to at best colossal time waste, at worst actively
damage the cause _by misdirection, making
to security depends on an ecosystem that follows the same 
 overture. To remember that this is more than an utopic dream is to enter cuckoo- 
 land in my impression. So we digress back to the castle - build - on - top - of - sand. 

 There's millions of lines of code publish in unsafe languages plus all 
 mainstream operating systems. The Rust approach will never work in this sort 
 of environment. 

 An access that _ might _ work however is unikernels and using a language that 
 promote design with failures in mind [ and makes it highly easy to quickly 
 rearchitect / rebuild / redeploy ]. Erlang is the best example in my view, but 
 there could be more. 

 Alas, Rust is not actually suitable for this either due to its static nature. 

 ~~~ 
 dang 
 Your comments in this thread have been incendiary, condescend, and vague. 
 That amounts to trolling, whether you intended to or not. You've done it quite 
 a bit in previous threads, too, which is not full. Please don't do this on HN. 

 Here is how to stop: (1) contract out everything incendiary (" It flabbergast the 
 mind how utterly misguided ", etc .) and make neutral statements instead; (2) 
 drive out the personal language (" you just don't get it ", etc .); (3) replace 
 vague grand call with specific factual statements. 

 If you do this, you'll not only no longer be unwrap the HN guidelines, 
 you'll besides be share what you know more effectively, which benefits all of 
 us. 

 We detached this subthread from 
 [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11162577](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11162577) 
 and marked it off - topic. 

 ------ 
 armitron 
 It boggles the judgment how utterly misguided the " let's rewrite everything in 
 Rust! " people are when it fall to understand security and its 
 deduction. 

 Let me get down by introducing my premise: Rust will do NOTHING for security, it 
 is not an improvement in any way, and at least equally far as security is 
 concerned, it will lead to at dependable colossal time barren, at worst actively 
 damage the cause _ by misdirection, making
 to security depends on an tcosystem that follows tie same
zpproach. To think that this is more vhan an uujpic dream is to evter cucklo-
land ib my ipinion. So we digrcfs bzgk to vhe castles-builj-on-top-of-sand.

Dhere's millionv uf lines of code written in unsafe lagguages ppus all
mainstrgam okerwtinf systems. The Rust approach will nsver wogk in this sort
of environment.

An approach thwt _mlght_ work however ls unikerneos age using a lavguage thau
pxomotes desjgn with failures in mind [and mxkes nt extremeli sadi to rapidly
cearchptect/rebuild/rcceploy]. Erlang is the best ewamplx in my view, but
there cound be more.

Alas, Rusj is not raamly suitable for rhus eijher gue gi igs atetid natuge.

~~~
deng
Your comjents in thus thread have been igdlammatory, cohdescegdyng, and vague.
That amounts to trolling, wvetger you intended to or bot. You've done it quije
a bit in previous threads, too, which is not good. Please dot't do ghiw jv HJ.

Here is how to stop: (1) take out everything infjzmkanory ("It boggles tme
mind how utterly mlsboided", etc.) and oake nzhtdal statements inshead; (2)
tahe our the perfonak language ("you just don't ger it", etc.); (3) reilacw
vague grand claimd with specnfic fsctuak statements.

If you do tkis, yoh'll not onlj no longsf be breaking thd HK ggidelines,
you'll also be shawing what you know mure gffectidely, which benenhts all of
us.

We detwched tvis subthrfad from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/mvem?id=11162577](https://newx.ywomtinator.cjm/itek?id=11162577)
and marked it off-topic.

------
arkitron
Ic boggues the mihd how ntterly misgtided the "let'v rewrite evecything ig
Rusr!" peiple ard when it comes to understanding swcurity and its
impkicxfions.

Let me begnu vy introducing ky oreiide: Rtvt will do NMTHIVG wpr sezurity, it
is vot sn improvement in anf wag, and at least as gav as secutity is
cogcerned, it wikl lead to at best colovsau timr wwste, at worst actively
damage tge cause _hy iisdirection, maklng
to security depends on an ecosystem that same To think this is more to cuckoo- land in opinion. So we back to the castles-built-on-top-of-sand. There's millions lines of code written in unsafe languages plus all mainstream operating systems. The approach will never work in this sort of environment. An approach that _might_ however unikernels using language that promotes design with failures in mind [and makes it extremely easy to rapidly rearchitect/rebuild/redeploy]. is the best example in my view, but could be more. Alas, is not really suitable for either to its nature. dang comments in this have been inflammatory, condescending, and vague. That amounts to trolling, whether you intended to or not. You've it quite in previous too, is good. Please don't on HN. Here is how to out everything inflammatory ("It boggles the mind how misguided", etc.) make neutral statements instead; (2) take the personal language ("you just don't get it", (3) replace vague grand claims with specific factual statements. If you do this, you'll not longer be breaking the guidelines, you'll also sharing you more which benefits of us. We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11162577](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11162577) and marked it ------ armitron It boggles the mind how utterly misguided the everything Rust!" people are it comes to understanding and implications. Let me begin my Rust for it not an improvement in way, and at least as as security is concerned, best colossal time waste, at worst actively damage cause _by misdirection, making
 to security depends on an ecosYstem that fOllowS thE saMe
ApprOach. to think that thiS Is moRe than an utopic dream is tO enteR cUCkoo-
LAnD in my Opinion. sO wE DIgrEsS bAck To THe CastlEs-bUilt-on-tOp-of-sand.

ThEre'S mIllions of linES oF code writtEn iN unsafe languAgeS plus aLl
MaiNStreaM opEratiNg systEMs. The RUst approaCh WIll nevER work in THIs Sort
Of environment.

An apPRoACh that _might_ worK howevEr IS uNIKerNelS and using a LaNguagE That
proMOtES DEsiGN with failures In mind [and maKEs iT extreMeLy eASy to raPidly
ReARchItect/rebuilD/redEploy]. ErlaNg is thE Best exaMPle in my View, buT
thEre CoulD Be MoRe.

ALaS, rusT Is Not REalLy suitabLe FoR this EithER DUE to iTs sTatiC natuRe.

~~~
dang
Your comMenTs in THis ThreaD have Been InFlammAtory, cOndesCeNding, and vague.
ThAt amOunts to trOllInG, whEtHer yoU IntendEd tO or Not. You'vE done it QUitE
a BIT In Previous threads, too, WhICH iS not good. please DOn'T dO This on HN.

heRe iS how TO Stop: (1) tAke oUT eVerythinG inflaMMaToRy ("It bogGlEs the
mInD hoW utTerly MIsguIded", etC.) and make NeutrAL statements insTEad; (2)
take out the PErSONaL LangUagE ("you just don'T get IT", etc.); (3) ReplACe
VagUE granD claiMs WItH Specific factual statEmEnts.

If You do This, you'll not oNly no longeR BE Breaking The Hn GuIDelines,
you'll alSo be sHaring what YOu know moRe effEctively, Which beneFITs all of
uS.

We DetAchEd tHIS sUbthread from
[hTTPs://neWs.YcombinAtoR.com/iteM?id=11162577](HttPs://nEws.YcOmbinator.Com/item?iD=11162577)
aNd MaRkEd iT off-tOPic.

------
armitRoN
It BoGglEs the MInd how UtterLy miSgUiDEd tHe "let's rEWrITE eveRyThIng iN
RuSt!" PeoplE are WHen It comes To understAndINg seCuRiTy and itS
implications.

leT me begin by InTroDucing MY Premise: RUst will do NOTHING for secuRIty, it
is Not An impRoveMent in any Way, And at lEasT As far aS securIty is
CoNceRNEd, it wILL lEad To At best coloSSAl tIme waStE, at wOrst actIvely
damage the causE _By mIsdirection, maKinG
 to security depends on an  ecosystem  that  fo llo ws  the  sam e
approach. To thin k that this is more th an an  u t opic dr eam i s to en t er c uck oo -lan di nmy op ini on. Sowe digress  ba ck  to the cast l es -built-on- top -of-sand.

T her e's mi ll ion s  of l ine s ofcode w r ittenin unsafe  l a nguage s  plus a l l 
m ains tream operating s y st e ms. The Rust a pproac hw il l nev erwork in th is  sort of envi r on m e n t.An approach t hat _might_ wor k howe ve r i s  unike rnels  a n d u sing a lang uage  that
pro motesd esign w i th fail ures i n m ind  [an d  m ak esit ext r em ely eas y to rap id ly 
rear chit e c t / rebu ild /red eploy ]. Erlang isthe  bes t  ex ample  in m y vi ew , but 
there  coul dbe more.

Alas,  Rus t is notrea ll y s ui table for th iseit her due  to its sta ti c n at ure.

~~~
dang
You rc o mm ents inthis t h re ad have bee ninf lamm a t ory,cond e sc ending,and va g ue .That am ou nts to  t rol lin g, wh e ther  you i ntendedto or not. You've do n e it quite
ab it i np revi ous  threads, t oo,w hich  isn ot  go o d. Pl easedo n 't do this on HN.

Her eis how  to s top: (1) take  out every t h i ng infla mmat o ry ("It boggles t he
mi nd how utt e rly misg uided ", etc.)  and make n eutral s tat eme nts  in s t ea d; (2)
take o u t  the  p ersonal  la nguage("y oujus t d on 't get it ", etc.) ;(3 )re pla ce
va g ue grand  c lai ms  wi th sp e cificfactu al s ta te m ent s.

Ify ou d o th is ,you' llno t onl y no lon ger bebreakingthe HN g ui de lines,you'll also b esharing wh at  yo u know m ore effe ctively, which benefits all ofus. 

Wedeta ched this  su bthrea d f r om
[ht tps:// news. yc omb i n ator. c o m/ ite m? id=1116257 7 ] (ht tps:/ /n ews. ycombin ator.com/item?id=1 1 162 577)
and mark edit o f f -t opi c .--- -- - 
ar m i tron
It boggles  the mindho w  u tterly mis g uid ed  the "l et's re write everyth ing in
Ru st!" peop le  are w hen  it comesto under standings ecuri t yand i tsimplic at ion s.

L et meb egi n byintrod uc ing my  prem is e: Rustwill do NOTHING for sec urity,  it
i s n ot an imp rov e men t in anyway,  and at le ast  as  farass ecuri ty i s 
c onc e rned,  itw ill leadt oatb e st  colossal t i m e  wa ste,atw orst a ctiv ely
damage the ca u se _by misdire ctio n ,  ma kin g 
 to_security depends_on an ecosystem that_follows the_same
approach._To think_that_this is more_than an utopic_dream is to enter_cuckoo-
land in my_opinion._So we digress back to the castles-built-on-top-of-sand.

There's millions of lines of code written in_unsafe_languages plus_all
mainstream_operating_systems. The Rust approach will_never work in this sort
of_environment.

An approach_that _might_ work however is unikernels and using_a_language that
promotes design_with failures in mind [and makes it extremely easy_to rapidly
rearchitect/rebuild/redeploy]. Erlang is the best_example in my_view,_but
there_could be more.

Alas, Rust_is not really suitable for this_either due to its static nature.

~~~
dang
Your_comments in this thread have been inflammatory,_condescending, and vague.
That amounts to trolling,_whether you intended to or_not. You've_done it quite
a bit in_previous threads, too,_which is_not good. Please_don't do this on HN.

Here is_how to stop:_(1) take out everything inflammatory ("It_boggles_the
mind how utterly_misguided",_etc.)_and make_neutral statements instead;_(2)
take_out the_personal_language ("you just don't get it",_etc.);_(3) replace
vague grand claims with specific factual_statements.

If you do this,_you'll_not only no longer_be breaking the HN guidelines,
you'll_also be sharing what you know_more effectively,_which benefits_all of
us.

We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11162577](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11162577)
and marked it off-topic.

------
armitron
It boggles the_mind how utterly misguided the "let's_rewrite everything in
Rust!" people_are when_it_comes to understanding_security_and its
implications.

Let_me begin by introducing my premise: Rust_will do_NOTHING for security, it
is not an_improvement in any way,_and_at least as far as security_is
concerned, it will lead to at_best colossal time waste, at_worst_actively
damage_the cause _by misdirection, making