Hacker News: rfgplk

New comment by rfgplk in "Elixir v1.20: Now a gradually typed language"

rfgplk — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 22:08:41 +0000

> I am not sure what GP is objecting to.

Elixir always felt like it would be a solid functional systems programming language, so not having a compiled backend is a genuine downside.

New comment by rfgplk in "Expanding Project Glasswing"

rfgplk — Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:06:13 +0000

It's just pure marketing, and most people are falling for it. The primary issue stems from their definition of "vulnerability". Most C code will be _swimming_ in vulnerabilities depending on how you analyze it (ie function that accepts a pointer but doesn't validate -> potential vulnerability right there). The only thing that matters is if it's de facto exploitable or not.

New comment by rfgplk in "Expanding Project Glasswing"

rfgplk — Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:03:10 +0000

It probably isn't, at least in terms of security or memory safety. The current models can already sniff out all memory vulnerabilities with relative ease, you can't really beat that.

New comment by rfgplk in "Coreutils for Windows"

rfgplk — Tue, 02 Jun 2026 17:48:00 +0000

> Or better yet, just switch everything to full POSIX.

Really not possible as most of POSIX semantics arise naturally from the kernel (or are enforced/executed at the kernel level). Windows technically provides some of them (or semantic equivalents) so you could make something work, but in order to do a full port you'd need to strip out too many concepts for it to be worthwhile. For instance the idea that "everything is a file" or the single root filesystem layout (which iirc is segmented deeply at the kernel level).

New comment by rfgplk in "Coreutils for Windows"

rfgplk — Tue, 02 Jun 2026 17:40:03 +0000

Isn't this just a restricted uutils fork? With most functionality culled for no good reason? "uname isn't useful on Windows" how? OSName/ Build numbers / systeminfo all exist?

New comment by rfgplk in "Coreutils for Windows"

rfgplk — Tue, 02 Jun 2026 17:38:12 +0000

There's almost no point to this, especially since they're already shipping a (strictly) limited subset with the reasoning "not useful on Windows" despite Windows equivalent facilities _clearly_ existing. They should have at least considered a full native port.