memory safety isn’t the only source of security vulnerabilities
I would like you to produce an example of a Rust evangelist disputing this. They're not as dimwitted or misguided as you seem to think.
eah
joined 1 year ago
Ah, yes, the unofficial anthem for the state of Michigan.
Cory Doctorow has had a lot to say about Uber on his blog.^[https://pluralistic.net/tag/uber/]
Off by one error
There's an ongoing effort to get gcc to compile Rust.^[https://lwn.net/Articles/907405/]
It looks like the repo was hosted on the author's website which appears to now be offline.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230330213306/http://perma-curious.eu/repo-ewx/
I found a fork on github.
The administration didn't threaten to take down the IA or investigate it or anything like that, so it's not similar at all.
It's conspiratorial to think the FBI is doing this to censor or hide something. archive.is is primarily used to get around paywalls. The most likely explanation is news sites complained to the FBI that their copyrights are being violated (which is true), so the FBI is investigating. They've had a problem with falling revenue for a decade or more at this point as everything went online and people expected to get instant access for free in contrast to print media.
You see decline. What I see is that a remarkable number of users have remained.
It doesn't answer your question directly, but https://linuxpreloaded.com/ has a large list of vendors you could check out.
Using it for writing tests is attractive because the way we generally test software sucks. Programs are written abstractly for an unimaginably large number of cases, but only tested for a finite few. It's so ugly and boring and inexact. I'd be so giddy if a language/system came along that did formal methods properly, enabling me to formally prove correctness in every case. Programming is fun. Proofs are fun. Tests are not fun. And I'm here on Earth to have the most fun.
This is all to say that using LLMs to do the boring work of writing tests is a suboptimal solution for testing software. It fits a general pattern. Yes, you can learn X by having a conversation with an LLM, but I believe it will be a subpar experience compared to forcing yourself to read a professionally-written book on the subject.