User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

A longstanding GnuTLS certificate validation botch

A longstanding GnuTLS certificate validation botch

Posted Mar 5, 2014 20:36 UTC (Wed) by luto (subscriber, #39314)
In reply to: A longstanding GnuTLS certificate validation botch by pizza
Parent article: A longstanding GnuTLS certificate validation botch

Bah. If you use C++ cleanly (as oppsed to saying "yay, fancy features!") you can do a decent job. But writing exception-safe code, for example, is hard.

I'm cautiously optimistic that Rust will improve the situation.


(Log in to post comments)

A longstanding GnuTLS certificate validation botch

Posted Mar 5, 2014 21:36 UTC (Wed) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link]

> I'm cautiously optimistic that Rust will improve the situation.

I'm hopeful, but not yet optimistic. I have "fought the long defeat" for too long to be optimistic without empirical evidence.

A longstanding GnuTLS certificate validation botch

Posted Mar 5, 2014 23:00 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

Rust adds a natural error propagation boundary - task. So exceptions simply crash the task, cleanly releasing all the resources associated with it.

It feels strange at first, but once you adapt the style to 'let it crash' tasks - it becomes natural.

A longstanding GnuTLS certificate validation botch

Posted Mar 6, 2014 12:58 UTC (Thu) by etienne (guest, #25256) [Link]

> It feels strange at first, but once you adapt the style to 'let it crash' tasks - it becomes natural.

But then programmer begin to use the "let it crash", when for instance synchronization should have been needed, and you finish by having better performance analyzer which tells you the number of crash per second of each subsystems, to know which subsystem you need to rewrite to get better interactivity...

A longstanding GnuTLS certificate validation botch

Posted Mar 6, 2014 16:24 UTC (Thu) by apoelstra (subscriber, #75205) [Link]

> But then programmer begin to use the "let it crash", when for instance synchronization should have been needed, and you finish by having better performance analyzer which tells you the number of crash per second of each subsystems, to know which subsystem you need to rewrite to get better interactivity...

Rust conditions ought to be for exceptional situations, just as exceptions are. So if you are a situation with several crashes per second probably you have a defective design (or some serious bugs). A task crashing would probably result in something like a '500 Internal server error' (or for a GUI application 'This tab has crashed, please reload the page and try again'), and these things should not be happening as a matter of course.

I certainly can't see a 'crash on everything' scenario becoming idiomatic.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds