https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html

> Show HN is for something you've made that other people can play with. HN users can try it out, give you feedback, and ask questions in the thread.

> On topic: things people can run on their computers or hold in their hands. For hardware, you can post a video or detailed article. For books, a sample chapter is ok.

I am glad to see work from other hacker news members. When it isn't interesting to me, I find something else on the internet or IRL that is.

“ Following this approach, in our model we consider the message encryption scheme used in MTProto 2.0 as a robust authenticated-encryption scheme, abstracting from its actual implementation.”

So yeah, they’re abstracting away the AE part of it, which may not be an accurate reflection of what telegram uses.

That being said, they’re aware this is a strong assumption:

“ Namely, the only assumption we make is that the latter is an authenticated encryption scheme, guaranteeing both integrity of ciphertext (INT-CTXT) and indistinguishability of chosen plaintext (IND-CPA). These properties are difficult to prove in a symbolic model like ProVerif’s, but can be proved in a computational model, e.g. using tools like CryptoVerif or EasyCrypt [5, 2]. This assumption may appear strong, especially considering that Telegram has been widely criticized for its design choices (such as ad hoc cryptographic primitives and an unusual encryption mode), and vulnerabilities have been found in MTProto v1.0 (but actually, none of these attacks have been replicated on the new MTProto 2.0). Still, proving the logical correctness of the protocol under a fairly general threat model is very important because, if a weakness in the protocol exists, it must be looked for in the “lower-level” part of the protocol, among the chosen cryptographic functions and other implementation choices.”

That being said, I can imagine there are people who would prefer a per sign in model, it’s just a level of granularity I don’t care for.

Good luck!

I think it’s awesome you’re building an alternative with a different feature set, I’m really curious to hear your take on pricing.

The messaging isn't clear on ReasonML's future at ALL though. Is it essentially deprecated until the full switch to ReScript happens? The Rescript FAQ mentions changes will be additive in supporting ReasonML, and they will track new features to OCaml, but will they track new features to Reason? Will anyone actively develop Reason anymore?

MIT isn’t going to fly anymore if the intention is to make money off of that.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23889936

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Usually, it’s when startups want employees to work longer hours than the value the they’re calculating on receiving from the equity+pay that’s being offered.

This is the exact attitude that makes people have terrible interview experience.

Sher is the author who “coined“ the “scanner” term.

[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/287818.Refuse_to_Choose_

It really is Qt vs Electron if you want to ship a product that makes money - something I am paying for is expected to have a lot of these "features".

> the most well financed..

It seems like those features are out of scope for the library - which is fair, one has to draw the line somewhere, and there are enough success stories with the project that it may not matter to a lot of the people. The author has mentioned in various places it's mostly for internal tools or game dev, which makes sense.

I am glad more toolkits are coming up (both for C/++ and Go, the languages I am interested in writing desktop apps with), but I am a bit surprised Qt seems by _far_ most mature compared to a lot of newer tools, not counting wxWidgets or glade/gtk3.

Would the usual competitor to this be JUCE?

Glad they wrote their collection, but not something I’m excited about.

In general I’d love to hear “this was better in Rust because of X, Y and Z and the tradeoffs I had to make were A, B and C”.

But again, this isn’t on the author to do, I’m pretty sure I can find other articles on the internet that talk to that.

Edit: most of the READMEs of the projects look pretty good about that on a quick skim.

Keeping something the way it is, is super hard in tons of ways a lot of us probably don't understand. We appreciate you.

Some companies need to take a much harder look at their spend than others regardless of where you deploy.

If you are evaluating a tool/lib/etc that moves at a fast pace and your whole shop is extremely fluent in language X there's huge value add to being able to dive in without a context switch to understand how it works, especially when debugging harder problems.

I don't think it applies to _this_ case where we're getting a VM that is _extremely_ battle-tested. Am I going to use a new OS instead of linux in production because someone tried to write an OS in zig? No. Will I congratulate the author for writing an OS in zig? Yes.

If I am looking for a key-value store and two are equivalent in their purported features and stability, I will choose the one that is written in X that my shop is most fluent in.

The author had a threshold of good feedback they needed from the community in a certain amount of time. They got the feedback they needed - people aren't interested in it, probably because of the latter part of your comment.

I don't think that's a valid reason to ask why someone started a thing, people start things for a variety of reasons. As far as I am concerned, they saw the development of a reimplementation of solid tech through and learned a lot from it.

> they already have a VM for BEAM and it works well. Without an additional selling point 'now in Rust' doesn't cut it.

This is spot on though.