pull down to refresh
31 sats \ 2 replies \ @dk OP 15 Dec 2023 \ parent \ on: Everyone Builds Software tech
kind of kidding, but there's some truth to it? ;)
I wonder if security can be more of a default if we build the right atomic blocks in code-gen. We're not there today, but I don't see why this future couldn't be built?
I like the idea of "grow your own code". It's kind of a similar energy. The mass-market, mass-produced stuff comes with a lot of tradeoffs. Historically we've been okay accepting these tradeoffs, because it was such a step-change improvement to even have software. But now/soon if we can have cheap/quality software we can have more personalized/bespoke experiences.
I wonder if security can be more of a default if we build the right atomic blocks in code-gen. We're not there today, but I don't see why this future couldn't be built?
I know this sounds like the way things should be built.
But the problem isn't why it couldn't be built. The problem is: Should we build it?
Do you really want to have atomic blocks on which we build everything on top?
Only to find out after years that there was a critical bug for years (see heartbleed iirc) in some absolutely critical code block that not enough people cared to review because everyone was like: surely, enough other people are going to review it, it's such important code!
And then everything is vulnerable at once. Reading about the history of heartbleed scared me so much, I literally have no idea how we even made it so far, lol
So I would rather not see such a future unless we really can proof that code is secure. But I don't see how.
You can imagine this problem to be related to bitcoin. Everything we build on top of bitcoin will fail if bitcoin fails.
Do we want to build our whole society the same way?
I am not sure yet, lol