I can see some interest in Fil-C, but some will still be against it due to the overhead it imposes (1.5x-4x worse performance, less deterministic since there's a GC), as well as the program will simply crash on arbitrary memory reinterpretation, use-after-free, and reading uninitialized memory. This is certainly better than it continuing, but certainly not as good as it could be.
CHERI has different characteristics in that it will crash for buffer overflows, but crashing on use-after-free is opt-in, it can only detect double-frees sometimes, it does nothing about uninitialized memory access, etc. It also requires adopting new hardware, which may be a hard sell.
In all I've mentioned above, I haven't even touched thread safety or integer safety which these do nothing about.
So with that being said, do as you please, but understand that simply adopting these is a different level of safety (program will not be exploitable but will crash) compared to something like Rust (program is not exploitable and will not crash because these issues are mostly* compile-time errors).
* "Mostly" since I mentioned integer safety which will be a runtime crash like the C safeguards, you can use unsafe, etc.
> I can see some interest in Fil-C, but some will still be against it due to the overhead it imposes (1.5x-4x worse performance, less deterministic since there's a GC)
Yeah this is where I stand with it. Fil-C seems to be the worst of all worlds. It combines the performance of an immature GC language, with the primitive syntax and ecosystem of C. (Eg nullability, void*, no generics, no collection types, a bad standard library, header files, no good build system, bad cross-OS portability, BYO strings, etc).
I don't choose C for its wonderful syntax. I choose it because its small, light and performant. If I was happy to use a garbage collector, I'd much prefer to go all the way and grab Typescript, C# or Go.
The only use case I can see for Fil-C is running legacy code that you can't be bothered porting to a better language.
Don't forget the compatibility issues: Fil-C isn't really usable if you mix C with other languages in the process.
It's especially problematic to have multiple different garbage collectors; so given the desire to reuse libraries across language boundaries, there's still a strong demand for Yolo-C, C++ or Rust.
Really what I'm getting at is that people are not done innovating on C ergonomics and safety and that there is potential there. Not that there is a new shivel-ready paradigm shift that has arrived to C. I'm only saying that that may happen and that it is more likely than most people credit.
> You can write portable software… and then compile it for each platform to get the best performance and functionality.
Perhaps not what you intended, but I believe this is that exactly what Cosmopolitan is doing:
- They are writing portable software in that it can run on various architectures and operating systems
- They compile it for each platform, even if the output is a single binary
- For the best performance and functionality, they mention several examples of how Cosmopolitan outperforms the native alternatives
I'm sure there are plenty of rebuttals ("Emacs on Windows is a port", "Cygwin isn't portable", "they could make the native version of $WHATEVER more performant", "Cosmopolitan isn't always faster", etc.), all of which are well and good, but would be missing the bigger picture, which is that there are reasons for both approaches (among others!) to exist, an idea that far transcends software.
Joins can certainly work in a data format like YAML. For an example, see Honey SQL from the Clojure community [0] (though without something to contrast strings like Clojure's keywords, you miss out on the automatic parameterization).
You mentioned moving JOINs around, so I'll mention that if represented as structured data, you can move any of the top level components around, so you could more closely follow the "true order of SQL" [1]. For example, I would love to be able to put FROM before SELECT in all or almost all cases. There's also being able to share and add to something like a complicated WHERE clause, where essentially all programming languages have built-in facilities for robustly manipulating ordered and associative data compared to string manipulation, which is not well-suited for the task.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't particularly care for YAML (though it doesn't bother me that much), but as someone who's done their fair share of programmatic SQL creation and manipulation in strings, not having a native way to represent SQL as data is a mistake in my opinion.
Yeah those examples aren't really fixing the problem I was referring to, if anything they're making it worse.
What I was referring to is that 'SELECT * FROM A JOIN B ON f(A) = g(B)' and 'SELECT * FROM B JOIN A ON f(A) = g(B)' mean exactly the same thing, but this is not obvious from the language. This is especially iffy when you start joining even more tables together.
The equivalence is clear when you write out the corresponding diagram and note that the join is its limit, but your examples seem to make the same mistake SQL did by lumping together the join condition with one of the two tables.
Does it seem clear to you that a + b is equivalent to b + a? If you know the semantics of join operations (as you should to at least a basic degree if you're going to use them), the SQL notation above is just as clear as the arithmetic notation for addition.
Also, although it may not be easy to remember, is this really a problem in practice given the installation count in most contexts is one? If there's a context where it's installed regularly, that's a one-time addition to an install script, Dockerfile, etc. in my experience. Do you have a situation that isn't amenable to that?
That's true, but the argument being made was one where "packages" and "packages" was the point of contention. While they're not versions as in numbers, there's plenty of existing work that have similar names, which accomplishes the same goal such as `venv`, `virtualenv`, `python-virtualenv`, `pyenv`, etc. in the Python community.
Are you proposing authentication over an insecure connection? If so, then the credentials could be compromised by a middle man. The same would be true for the signatures.
> I have no idea how he's successful in tech, judging from what I saw there.
I think judging only from what you saw there is the issue. If you look somewhere like Wikipedia [0], you'll see he was the first person to jailbreak the iPhone, the first person to achieve hypervisor access to the PS3's CPU, he took first place in several notable CTFs (at least one time as a one-person team), he worked on Google's Project Zero team (and created a debugger called QIRA while he was there), creating comma.ai, and the list goes on.
As someone who writes more Python than Clojure these days, Python's limited lambdas are a regular source of frustration. Additionally, Clojure's first-class data structures are sorely missed in Python.
> 2. REPL-driven development!
The huge drawback IMHO that rarely gets discussed is the ability to change modules in Python's interactive interpreter (Clojure's analog is the namespace). For example, in the context of a web app, adding a new view in some views module, then swapping to the routes module and adding the adding a new route to wire up the view. Additionally, there's no built-in way to connect to the interpreter, as manually typing in a REPL is not the usual flow. To me this makes Python's interpreter unusable for anything but toy examples.
> 3. Macros!
Clojure is less macro-dependent than other lisps, but in most projects I use, there are one or two that really help clean things up. If you look to other modern languages that have macros (for example, Rust), I think the same idea applies.
Clojure can fit quite well into Spring Boot-centric environments!
I've added Clojure to several legacy Spring Boot apps, and the fact that it can be introduced as "just a library" made that portion a snap. If you're not trying to access resources related to Spring Boot's dependency injection, it's pretty straightforward to call into Clojure from Java. If you _do_ want access to DI resources, there's a small amount of code required to wire things up, though it took me a while to find out what that code was, mostly because it requires access to portions of Spring Boot that are not typically user-facing.
Since I had hooked Clojure up to the Spring apps, I also set things up so I could SSH onto application servers, then get a REPL via a socket server into the applications themselves. Being able to check and sometimes change the state of the application live at runtime was like a superpower. This proved extremely valuable, often for debugging errors in the Java portions of the code, but also for situations like final design tweaks live with a client in a development environment. Client asks to bump a font size or change a color or adjust a border or change some copy, then I make the change in my editor, send it over the socket REPL, tell the client to refresh, and repeat. When done, I would simply save, commit, and would be confident that it's what the client was after. The only downside is that I'm no longer at a shop that uses Clojure, and feedback loops for production debugging or letting clients see their decisions are measured in days or weeks when possible at all, not seconds or minutes.
I will admit that connecting to a running application is dangerous, but so is what many surgeons do, and we are certainly not going to ask them to turn in their scalpels. By being conscious of the "great power; great responsibility" bit, I was able to come out mishap-free.
On the other hand, when I had to create new projects where I thought Clojure would be a good fit, I just went all-in with the Clojure ecosystem rather than start with Spring Boot and add Clojure, and I found going all-in with Clojure to be incredibly productive. With that being said, I made the decisions with a decent understanding of both Spring Boot and Clojure, so my experience would likely vary from that of someone who is experienced with Spring Boot and knows nothing of Clojure.
CHERI has different characteristics in that it will crash for buffer overflows, but crashing on use-after-free is opt-in, it can only detect double-frees sometimes, it does nothing about uninitialized memory access, etc. It also requires adopting new hardware, which may be a hard sell.
In all I've mentioned above, I haven't even touched thread safety or integer safety which these do nothing about.
So with that being said, do as you please, but understand that simply adopting these is a different level of safety (program will not be exploitable but will crash) compared to something like Rust (program is not exploitable and will not crash because these issues are mostly* compile-time errors).
* "Mostly" since I mentioned integer safety which will be a runtime crash like the C safeguards, you can use unsafe, etc.
reply