Crypto really is the grotesque despressive clown staring our desperate civilization in the face, while futily screaming about our all consuming absurdity.
Crypto works fine in a world that is not addicted to burning fossil fuels.
Unfortunatly, we live in a world that is not only desperately addicted to them, but literally subsidizes the consumption of fossil fuels.
I used to have this position as well, writing everything in either assembly or pure lambda calculus, to avoid all these pesky higher level language features.
So scala is neither taken over or destroyed and the author of this post stresses multiple times that he does not suggest that this approach by adopted by the rust community, even concluding with:
>But Rust is not Haskell. The ergonomics of GATs, in my opinion, will never compete with higher kinded types on Haskell's home turf. And I'm not at all convinced that it should. Rust is a wonderful language as is. I'm happy to write Rust style in a Rust codebase, and save my Haskell coding for my Haskell codebases.
>In many cases there are actually several layers of popups obscuring the content, and some are delayed so they only pop up after you start reading the content.
I swear I've had ones that popup as I move the mouse to close the tab.
I was more wondering how time leaks and laziness relates to denotational vs operational semantics? I couldn't find anything about either in the links (they seem to be general descriptions of haskell and laziness..?).
Trivially. For any given system 'safety' is an operational concept, not a denotational one.
You can't formalize the notion of 'safety' let alone prove (in the Mathematical sense) that your code has it without examining its runtime behaviour.
In the words of Donald Knuth: Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
In one context lazy evaluation may be 'safe' - it another it may be 'dangerous' - the context in which this assertion is made is always about human needs and expectations, not mathematics.
With particular example being that lazy evaluation allows for side-channel attacks in cryptographic systems. That's undesirable - hence operationally 'unsafe'.
Crypto works fine in a world that is not addicted to burning fossil fuels.
Unfortunatly, we live in a world that is not only desperately addicted to them, but literally subsidizes the consumption of fossil fuels.