feedmegin posted:

That's not a language thing, that's a 'my compiler is poo poo at reporting errors' thing. The language in no way mandates bad error reporting.

Ithaqua posted:

This cache talk reminds me of the time I was looking into a complaint that our website would sometimes take a really long time to serve up pages, for no good reason. A profiler showed that once an hour, the site would go insane and start hitting the database like crazy for a few minutes.

It turns out that the a "senior" developer had written his own caching implementation instead of using the built-in ASP .NET caching system. Every hour, it would just totally clear itself, regardless of how stale the data was, or how stale the data could reasonably get without it being useless. This led to fun things like users customers placing orders for things that were out of stock and being told it would ship within 48 hours, because the cached data showed that we still had plenty of those in stock and could fulfill the request that day.

When asked why, he had no explanation, but insisted that we not use the ASP .NET cache.

Plorkyeran posted:

I've encountered a lot of caches that don't actually make anything faster. Common reasons include terrible cache implementations that take as long to look up things as looking them up in the database, caching things that take less time to compute from scratch each time than to cache, the cache getting invalidated too frequently to be of any real use, having to spend enough time ensuring the cache gets invalidated when needed that it ends up outweighing the speed gains, bad LRU implementations that slow down as the cache gets bigger and so appear great in tiny benchmarks but suck in real usage, and just plain never actually reading stuff from the cache.

A cache making things slower is of course still far better than the more common failure case of stale things being read from the cache. I tend to get twitchy when people propose Just Cache It.

Dirty Frank posted:

I met my first foreach switch today, I shed a silent tear. The collection it iterated over was hardcoded and never altered. Honestly thought I'd never see this for real.

code:

private string[] poop = new string[] { "fart", "pants", "etc" };
...
foreach (string key in poop)
{
  switch (key)
  { 
    case "fart":
      // do thing with fart key
    case "pants":
      // do same thing but with pants key, duplicate code etc.
      ...

Zombywuf posted:

Give it up, ADA is never going to be a thing outside the defence industry. Even there it's loosing ground: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockh...35_Lightning_II

Plorkyeran posted:

I've encountered a lot of caches that don't actually make anything faster. Common reasons include terrible cache implementations that take as long to look up things as looking them up in the database, caching things that take less time to compute from scratch each time than to cache, the cache getting invalidated too frequently to be of any real use, having to spend enough time ensuring the cache gets invalidated when needed that it ends up outweighing the speed gains, bad LRU implementations that slow down as the cache gets bigger and so appear great in tiny benchmarks but suck in real usage, and just plain never actually reading stuff from the cache.

A cache making things slower is of course still far better than the more common failure case of stale things being read from the cache. I tend to get twitchy when people propose Just Cache It.

Zombywuf posted:

Then there was the cache that quite sensibly stored values in a hash table. Did I say sensibly? I meant . The key value pairs in the hash table looked like this "(<key>_<value>, True)". The entries would be iterated over until a key was found with a prefix matching the looked for value.

tractor fanatic posted:

Is it intractable to write a formally proven TLS library in C, or is mathematical correctness just not a high priority?

Scaevolus posted:

There's a formally proven TLS library in F#, miTLS.

Proving semantics is much easier in a functional language with a garbage collector. It's possible that miTLS could be "lowered" to C, but it would require carefully proving each step of the translation.

There are other attempts at formally verifying C programs like Frama-C which might be applicable as well.

vOv posted:

I can buy that miTLS is formally correct, but what about timing attacks?

vOv posted:

I can buy that miTLS is formally correct, but what about timing attacks?

http://www.mitls.org/wsgi/tls-attacks posted:

[timing-based side channel attacks against cryptographic primitives] are outside our model, and we rely on the proper implementation of core cryptographic algorithms by the Bouncy Castle library that we rely on.

GrumpyDoctor posted:

return0 posted:

It would be cool if a record scratch noise played in a meeting when people suggest using some GPL bullshit

ultramiraculous posted:

Why in God's Greed Earth is it called Bouncy Castle. It's one of those names that may as well come with a record scratch sound effect when you mention it in a meeting.

carry on then posted:

Probably the same mentality that leads to one of the largest software companies in the world putting in a ball pit for its employees.

Gazpacho posted:

Said company will continue putting in ball pits as long as it remains an effective PR gimmick to attract talented introverts.

ultramiraculous posted:

Why in God's Greed Earth is it called Bouncy Castle. It's one of those names that may as well come with a record scratch sound effect when you mention it in a meeting.

Volmarias posted:

Almost as if not taking yourself 100% seriously can be an effective strategy for attracting adults with a sense of humor!

Hammerite posted:

I'm not sure if you just typoed but you are aware that it's "God's green Earth", not "greed", right

ultramiraculous posted:

Why in God's Greed Earth is it called Bouncy Castle. It's one of those names that may as well come with a record scratch sound effect when you mention it in a meeting.

https://www.bouncycastle.org/about.html posted:

As the Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. (ABN 84 166 338 567) operates as a Registered Charity

return0 posted:

It would be cool if a record scratch noise played in a meeting when people suggest using some GPL bullshit

Scaevolus posted:

Proving semantics is much easier in a functional language with a garbage collector. It's possible that miTLS could be "lowered" to C, but it would require carefully proving each step of the translation.

GCC 4.9 posted:

- Google has added an Undefined Behavior Sanitizer to GCC 4.9, complementing the existing Address Sanitizer, etc. When passing -fsanitize=undefined, GCC will attempt to detect undefined runtime behavior for C/C++ code-bases.

MrMoo posted:

Well here's a good sign for the books: hopefully cut down some posts here, ...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQ0OTc

The Laplace Demon posted:

Its scope is really narrow. I just compiled and ran a couple examples of undefined behavior from the C++ standard with no observable effect. From the commit linked, it looks like as of that article, it only adds runtime checks for division by zero, INT_MIN/-1, out-of-bound shifts, and reaching __builtin_unreachable.

Plorkyeran posted:

UBSan's been around for quite a while without getting anything new, and the other sanitizers haven't had a burst of new development after being ported to GCC.

The Laplace Demon posted:

Its scope is really narrow. I just compiled and ran a couple examples of undefined behavior from the C++ standard with no observable effect. From the commit linked, it looks like as of that article, it only adds runtime checks for division by zero, INT_MIN/-1, out-of-bound shifts, and reaching __builtin_unreachable.

JawnV6 posted:

Wasn't that LLVM post linked here? The one that went through undefined code and how hard it is to report out "the compiler is assuming this comparison with a variable hoisted out of an inline looped submodule pinch header will always be true". IIRC it was in the context of that dereferenced pointer eliminating the null check.

fake edit: http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know.html

vOv posted:

Why did you change your avatar from a CPU to an anime

Doc Hawkins posted:

I wonder if any companies refuse to use git or python because of the silliness of their names.

I just recently saw a clojure-related vim plugin called "fireplace." The readme says the name was changed from "foreplay" "so Java developers wouldn't have to speak in hushed tones."

kitten smoothie posted:

At one of the talk sessions at I/O a couple years ago, Google introduced a game development framework that would let you write Java and then it would generate code for running the game in either a Java runtime, iOS, Android, or HTML5.

They named it "ForPlay." The framework was interesting but it was hilarious how the presenter was awkwardly trying his hardest to use the same inflection while saying the name, so that it sounded "For Play," not "Foreplay."

necrotic posted:

This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_sbusEUz5w&t=861s