As someone who learned Ada for a defense job years ago, I’ve been wondering how long it was going to take until I saw others comparing Rust to it, both in the sense of the language “safety” goals and the USG pushing for it.
While the rust compiler is leagues better than any Ada compiler I ever had the misfortune of dealing with, the day to day pain that Rust incurs will probably always be a thorn in it’s side
Ada
It has a lot of really nice features for creating data types and has amazing static analysis during compile time.
But all the tooling around it is absolute crap making using the language unbearable and truly awful. If it had better tooling I could see that it would have taken a decent chunk of development away from C and C++
The ham radio thing makes me so sad, it really does seem like a dying hobby. But when I took my test the club sponsoring it had guys there who immediately berated me for using a practice test guide and getting a cheap piece of crap radio. Like yeah, I know it’s a terrible radio, but it was $70 with the practice guide and I’m a poor af college student. That little radio lasted me years and I only bought a new one cause it’s battery died and I couldn’t find a replacement
As someone who is in the aerospace industry and has dealt with safety critical code with NASA oversight, it’s a little disingenuous to pin NASA’s coding standards entirely on attempting to make things memory safe. It’s part of it, yeah, but it’s a very small part. There are a ton of other things that NASA is trying to protect for.
Plus, Rust doesn’t solve the underlying problem that NASA is looking to prevent in banning the C++ standard library. Part of it is DO-178 compliance (or lack thereof) the other part is that dynamic memory has the potential to cause all sorts of problems on resource constrained embedded systems. Statically analyzing dynamic memory usage is virtually impossible, testing for it gets cost prohibitive real quick, it’s just easier to blanket statement ban the STL.
Also, writing memory safe code honestly isn’t that hard. It just requires a different approach to problem solving, that just like any other design pattern, once you learn and get used to it, is easy.
Oh yeah I pulled 20 years out of my ass. I could see some manager there saying to plan for it even though all the engineers expect a much shorter lifetime
The issue is that with ongoing service across time, the longer the service is being used the more it costs Kia. The larger the time boxes Kia uses the bigger the number is and the more you’re going to scare off customers.
Using Kias online build and price, looks like the most expensive Telluride you can get right now is $60k MSRP, cheapest at 30k
Let’s assume Kia estimates average lifetime of a Telluride to be 20 years so they create an option to purchase this service one time for the “lifetime” of the vehicle. Taking in good faith the pricing Kia has listed, using that $150 annual package, and assuming that price goes up every year at a rate of 10% (what Netflix, YouTube, etc have been doing) across those twenty years you’re looking at around $8.5k option. At the top trim thats still 14% extra that is going to make some buyers hesitant, at the base model that’s 28% more expensive.
Enough buyers will scoff at that so Kia can either ditch the idea entirely as they’ll lose money on having to pay for the initial development and never make their money back, or they find some way to repackage that cost and make it look like something that buyers are willing to deal with.
To me the bigger issue is the cost of the service vs what you’re getting. Server time + dev team + mobile data link cannot be costing Kia more than a few million annually, mid to upper hundred K is more likely so they must not be expecting that many people to actually be paying for any of this
It’s IEEE misinterpreting the guys original paper.
https://liuyang12.github.io/proj/privacy_dual_imaging/ (can’t find the full paper, but here’s the abstract at least)
The paper author straight up says the light sensor is impractical to use as an attack vector, but when you use it in conjunction with other sensors you might be able to gleam more information than most might think. It leaves me with question of what other sensors can you combine to start getting behavioral information that is a security threat?
I’ll say it worked for me. I read the IEEE headline, called bullshit, dug into it and yeah you can only get a tiny bit of information that you have to stretch pretty far to get useful conclusions from… But it’s more than the zero I initially thought. So props to the paper author, he met his goal. IEEE wanted sensationalized clicks, which they too unfortunately got.
In pure C things are a bit different from what you describe.
Declaration has (annoyingly) multiple definitions depending on the context. The most basic one is when you are creating an instance of a variable, you are telling the compiler that you want a variable with symbol name X, data type Y, and qualifiers A,B and C. During compilation the compiler will read that and start reserving memory for the linker to assign later. These statements are always in the form of “qualifiers data_type symbol;”
Function declaration is a bit different, here you’re telling the compiler “hey you’re going to see this function show up later. Here are the types for arguments and return. I pinky swear promise you’ll get a definition somewhere else”. You can compile without the definition but the linker will get real unhappy if you don’t have the definition when it’s trying to run. Here you’re looking at a statement of “qualifiers return_data_type symbol(arg_1_data_type arg_1_symbol,…);” Technically in function declarations you don’t need argument symbols, just the types, but it’s better to just have them for readability.
Structs are different still. Here you’re telling the compiler that you’re going to have this struct definition somewhere else in the same translation unit, but the data type symbol will show up before the definition. So whenever the compiler sees that data type show up in a variable instance declaration it won’t reserve space right away but it has to have the struct definition before compilation ends. This is pretty straightforward syntax wise, “struct struct_name;” (Typedefs throw a syntax wrench into this that I won’t get into, it’s functionally the same though)
One more thing you can do with variables during declaration is to “extern” them. This is more similar to function declaration, where you’re telling the compiler “hey you’re gonna see this symbol pop up, here’s how you use it, but it actually lives somewhere else k thx bye”. I personally don’t like calling this declaration since it behaves differently than normal declaration. This is the same as a normal variable declaration syntax with “extern” tossed in the front of the qualifiers.
Definitions have two types: Function definitions contain the actual code that gets translated into instructions, Enum, struct, typedef definitions all describe memory requirements when they get used.
Structs and enums will have syntax like “struct struct_name {blah,blah,blah};”, typedefs are just “typedef new_name old_name;”, and function definition “qualifiers return_data_type symbol(arg_1_data_type arg_1_symbol,…) {Blah,blah,blah}” (note that function definitions don’t need a ; at the end and here you do need argument symbols)
Lastly, when you create a variable instance, if you say that you want that symbol to have value X all in one statement, by the standard that’s initialization. So “int foo = 5;” is declaration and initialization. Structs and arrays have special initialization syntax, “struct foo bar = {5, 6, 7};” where the numbers you write out in the list gets applied in order of the element names in the struct definition. You can also use named initialization for structs where it would look like “struct foo bar = {. element_one = 5, .e_two = 6, .e_three = 7};” This style syntax is only available for initialization, you cannot use that syntax for any other assignment. In other words you can’t change elements in bulk, you have to do it one at a time.
C lets you get real wild and combine struct definition, struct instance declaration and initialization all into one! Though if I was your code reviewer I’d reject that for readability.
<\wall-o-text>
I feel like Win 10 default apps just waste so much screen real estate. I’ve been using Thunderbird for years and while 5 years ago I would agree the user interface is obtuse the refresh that happened a few years back really improved things. I’ve also never had stability problems and I have thunderbird tracking 7 email accounts with hundreds of thousands of emails total (I’m a data hoarder)
Evolution on the other hand, hoo boy, I have to use it at work and despise it lol. That program gives me stability problems and frequently fails to interact with Exchange. Gives me a great excuse for missing meetings haha
All said, Outlook desktop I think is superior to both Thunderbird and Evolution, I just don’t wanna pay for it
I had a boss who would send audio messages constantly. I’d be having a conversation with him, he’d get a text message on his phone, stop talking to me to mess with this phone, do a voice recording, mess it up cause he’d whisper it so others wouldn’t hear him (we still totally could), repeat it, rinse and repeat until he got it right, send it, then would ask me what we were talking about.
I’m convinced people who use voice messages have no situational awareness and are potentially psychopaths