while I agree with you in this case, I don’t particularly like the “I speak for everyone” stance you seem to be taking here.

Do you think an additional CVE tag would make sense? Given there’s upvotes some people seem to be interested.

Yeah, I’d rather not have them at all. Maybe a detailed, tech write-up of discovery, implementation, and mitigation of new classes of vulnerability with wide impact. Meltdown/Spectre or Return-oriented Programming are examples. Then, we see only the deep stuff with vulnerability-listing sites having the regular stuff for people using that stuff.

seems like a CVE especially arbitrary code execution is worth posting. my 2 cents

For those interested: next RustFest is in September/October.

Has the location been decided yet?

I use the post-receive hook to checkout, build and deploy a couple of small services on my personal server (blog, wiki, an irc bot, …). Works reasonably well and has this heroku-like feeling.

What are proper cert checks?

Yeah, the RSS situation is regrettably more complicated than I’d thought. I’m going to punch a hole for it.

I’d say something about depending on services you don’t control, but I think one ideological battle will suffice. :)

While definitely not the same as hearing the talk and able to talk to the speaker afterwards, talks should be recorded and available online after the conference.

We love exchanges with other programming language communities, in both ways :). For example, Aaron Turon was keynote speaker at the Scala Days a while ago.

I can’t chat too much, but we have at least a teasing submission in that category for RustFest, too.

I can’t publish actual results for obvious reasons, but it does find a few servers in a short time (~15-30 minutes maybe, I wasn’t paying attention to the terminal)

Scanning the internet randomly in that way is not gonna lead to a lot of results, at least not in any reasonable time frame. If you instead look at sites that crawl the internet for a living, you get 17.000 results. Not all are actually Redis nodes and not all Redis nodes are completely open.

Attack vectors on Redis to compromise the whole system are known for quite some time, and Redis now has better defaults and a protected-mode by default. But people tend to not update it. We still reguarly have users coming into the IRC channel asking for help with cleaned/exploited Redis node.

I keep reminding people to not open up each and every service to the whole wide internet.

Too bad this happened. Given the limited info you gave it could be different things: 1. a transient error connecting to github 2. a proxy in use that somehow breaks the connection 3. using a broken version of cargo (yes, we had that recently…)

From my own experience I find the Rust tooling far more reliable than what Go offers.

Do you think that’s because golang has concretely better tooling in some way or because you’ve grow accustomed to its quirks? I’ve experienced the promising new library without a working example a lot, regardless of language. I’d be curious to hear what approach go takes that can address it.

On other end of spectrum, I had to try to code something in a hurry on a new computer without knowing tooling or programming due to memory loss. FreeBASIC did a simple install, I/O worked as in tutorials, typed stuff into text editor, and ran compiler with terminal command.

Effortless just like QBasic I started with ages ago. Another good one from my early time was LISP box or something like that. Integrated everything from editor to compiler in one executable. Stuff like this is how I judge how easy tooling is to install and get running with.

I’m concerned with how subtle it is. It took me a while to figure out the revised code because I just didn’t see the first ?. I saw the second, but couldn’t figure out how it worked.

Maybe rust isn’t C, but I’ve never liked control flow macros. I get nervous when I can’t see all the ways out of a function.

[Comment removed by author]

At first glance, I really like it. I code mostly backends in Erlang/Elixir. One of the biggest issues of my code is having nested cases (match in Rust or OCaml). Elixir somehow got it solved with the with special form. The RabbitMQ team created Erlando using Erlang’s parse transform (sort of macros) that adds syntax extensions to Erlang, with the do syntax for monads being the most important one to solve somehow this issue.

Is there any other way of solving this issue? Is there any other concept that solves this type of problem that is not somehow related to monads?

I ask this since the last years it appeared to me that in the end if I don’t have support or tools similar to do notation I keep on reiventing the wheel or non standard tools like Erlando or semi powerful constructs like Elixir with.

I don’t think “troll” is a good word to describe Matt. I might call his piece an “accidental troll” instead.

Those quotes show that Matt might not have done lots of research to back up his original article, but they don’t at all imply that Matt published the article hoping to get a rise out of people for the parts that were wrong. The article looks like a genuinely-offered, but under-researched, set of suggestions.