Blog

Sharing additional thoughts arising from discussions around “Open Source Software and Corporate Influence.”

Open source software projects are frequently enmeshed with the interests of corporations. We should update mental models of who works on open source accordingly, and build or modify power structures to be more resilient to corporate capture.

Folks at Google explain how to think about the move to memory safe languages: “the problem is new code.”

Not everything will be rewritten in Rust, so C++ must become safer, and we should all care about C++ becoming safer.

We can learn from case studies of APIs forever trapped by past decisions. Just like a video game can softlock and become impossible to progress, so too can APIs become softlocked by technical and social commitments.

Reduction is seductive in the information-sparse environment immediately after a security event. Resisting reduction, gathering facts, and breaking down multivariate causes and responses is more productive.

Amid the move to memory safe languages, the people who build and build on C and C++ ought to be recognized. Any of us could be hit by an upheaval of technology in which we’ve invested.

Rust types offer four ways to decide what happens next, along two axes: deciding at runtime vs. compile time, and permitting a closed or open set of types.

The systems we build are manifestations of our politics. So what is the philosophy of Rust and what does it offer for the state of software?

Rust generics can trade off binary size for expressiveness. Learning to identify when the trade isn’t worth it is a valuable skill that can help you write better code.

Rust has many pairs of string types, each with a distinct purpose. Understanding those purposes helps with understanding Rust itself.