If I can be of any help, developing new features or bug fixes, I am more than happy to contribute. This is least I can do. Kindly let me know whom should i contact regarding this. I am new to lobsters. :)
Aside from article, I really like the way his website headline and about us page was created. :)
Those days. I wish I was there. I introduced to windows first time. I wish it was UNIX.
Look at all they accomplished using only DOS!
With a little help from next…
That was only Doom and later. :)
Definitely great post. As junior developer I used to think same about CRUD mapping with HTTP verbs. There seems to be a lot of articles interpreting CRUD as get,post,put,delete and fails to tell the important differences.
Article was eye opening for me. I was one of those who thought that micro service architecture are necessary for scaling without considering its use cases and pitfalls.
Eye opening. Huge Thanks.
I never knew you can build PC this way. Very interesting. I found cryptography section coolest.
Now i have might to learn one more JS framework. This never ends. Sigh. Seriously back to backend and api development. JS will make me crazy now. Just too many of them.
I’m sure that everyone knows but just in case if we have new people around here that never heard of http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
Linux From Scratch was one of the most educational things I’ve ever done. It gives a great understanding of how a Linux system is put together.
See also http://landley.net/aboriginal. Though it’s in some flux at the moment. The challenge with such projects is always keeping them up to date.
Development of Aboriginal Linux has ended, replaced by mkroot.
Development of Aboriginal Linux has ended, replaced by mkroot.
That sounds quite final and not “in some flux”.
For a learning project it’s not a big deal to run one script instead of another.
Never knew there was resource this great. Thanks. I am planning to learn Debian. This will help me a lot.
Absolutely shit title.
The content is “Bad code reviews are bad. Good code reviews are good.” Not really worth reading.
Saved my time. Almost clicked.
Dangerous to see titles like that while drinking morning coffee. I about bought a new monitor over a title that was worth spitting on. It had to be what you said or bullshit given weight of empirical evidence. Moving on…
Welcome to Medium tech publications.
This is definitely the article I’ve been waiting for at least on the SPARK side. I was shocked when author said he worked at AdaCore. He was way more fair to Rust than I expected even throwing AdaCore under the bus in the section on their GPL and community handling. They deserved it but I thought it would be an outsider doing it. End result is similar to what I came up with: SPARK wins on anything static or verified w/ Rust winning on dynamic or flexible concurrency; SPARK wins on predictability with Rust on productivity. Now, author needs to do a detailed comparison between Rust and Ada 2012 which is its actual competition.
That good stuff said, author was way off on the historical aspect. Should be corrected.
“Rust is probably the most notable indication of the growing need for languages with safety in mind.”
The forced introduction of GC’d languages for apps by Sun and Microsoft were the indication. A need for safety is strongly established. Rust is first push that’s popular to do safety with no GC.
“while Rust was being developed, another effort was undertaken by a different community, also trying to raise the bar in terms of safety.”
Maybe he’s just trying to be impartial. One of inventors of software engineering, Dijkstra, was using formal specs with code on his OS in 1960’s. CompSci, Defense, hardware industry, and some in safety-critical were all building or using tools for formally-verified systems for decades. Most of industry and FOSS ignored it. British researchers defined SPARK in 1988 with it spun off to Praxis Limited for industrial use. This effort actually reduced amount of safety and verification vs full, formal verification with aim to automate as much as possible at code level for increased adoption by non-experts in formal methods. After many iterations and a partnership with AdaCore, the tool eventually achieved its goal on tech side with an open-source version, too. Another effort at similar time with similar aims on specification side was Eiffel method.
On Rust side, I don’t have the big picture. I do know their core capability, the memory safety, came from Greg Morrisett’s work on Cyclone language that modified C to be safer. Greg was an expert in type theory and language-level security with enough overlap to tie him into high-assurance field. He also worked on extending ML’s. Graydon wanted a safe, fast language. He combined unique capabilities he saw in Cyclone with features from other languages or paradigms. He likewise wrote the compiler in an ML (Ocaml) for fast, reliable development. He was sponsored by Mozilla with teams focused on the tech and strong community (AdaCore’s failure). The rest is history.
Long story short: the forces behind both SPARK and Rust have always been there. Just ignored. Roughly three, smart people paying attention to it and building on it was all it took to get the two languages started. Imagine what would happen if more people did this. That is, more CompSci people tried to be practical (in FOSS not patents!) or more developers building on strongest stuff from CompSci. Anyway, both have work underway to specify them for later full, formal verification with SPARK being added to CompCert compiler. Both are usable now for robust apps. If you do safety or security, you should be defaulting on them unless good reason otherwise.
Note: The Archive.org page for Morrisett’s old site at Harvard showed his publication in 2006 was first time it got many users. Then, it was pretty small until 2016. I attribute that to Rust mentioning Cyclone was one of its influences. It’s a good illustration, though, of what I talk about here of tech in high-assurance security or systems… often CompSci itself… taking 10+ years to reach mainstream. Gotta smash that barrier somehow. I do what I can sharing links but “I am but one man.”
EDIT: Dude is apparently funny too.
FWIW, when I saw the title of this post, I was really surprised that it was submitted by someone other than you. :)
Thanks for noticing haha. Yeah, Id definitely have submitted it if I saw it first. Glad others are keeping eye out for such things. Also, glad an AdaCore employee is studying Rust. I really want them to port its temporal safety to Ada/SPARK. With that, it’s number 1 hands down.
Hey Nick, you really should consider opening a blog or at least collect this kind of comments somewhere!
Your comment made me look up SPARK. :D Thank you.
Very welcome! :) You might also like seeing how the inventor applies it given they’re one of few companies that engineer software:
And heres one showing how Ada was designed to systematically eliminate programmer error. It’s a book but easy to skim thanks to organization.
Definitely good compilation.
Great. I’m going to try it this weekend.
Interesting read. Blog has another great article on x64 OS.
Good read. Thank you. Helped me alot.
How do we know they’re the actual files and not something else just using names from Snowden leaks or Kaspersky report? I’m still awaiting validation by malware experts or active hackers before I’m accepting that it’s NSA’s tools.
Yep. These file might infected itself. Who knows may be NSA put them there. Link is still there after all these hour, make me wonder whether its trap or not?
If they were real, within an hour it would have been taken down. Well whatever be careful.
That another thing I wondered about. They might not try after previous failures. However, the only link to classified “weapons” being on Github should make takedown easy to them. They didn’t do it, though.
Good read. Thank you Manish.
Thanks. Good read.