Comment by 999900000999

> Standard libraries should include everything needed to interact with modern systems.

This is great when the stdlib is well-designed and kept current when new standards and so on become available, but often "batteries included" approaches fail to cover all needs adequately, are slow to adopt new standards or introduce poorly designed modules that then cannot be easily changed, and/or fail to keep up-to-date with the evolution of the language.

I think the best approach is to have a stdlib of a size that can be adequately maintained/improved, then bless a number of externally developed libraries (maybe even making them available in some official "community" module or something with weaker stability guarantees than the stdlib).

I find it a bit funny that you specifically say HTTP handling and JSON are the elements required when that's only a small subset of things needed for modern systems. For instance, cryptography is something that's frequently required, and built-in modules for it often suck and are just ignored in favor of external libraries.

EDIT: actually, I think my biggest issue with what you've said is that you're comparing Python, Go, and Rust. These languages all have vastly different design considerations. In a language like Python, you basically want to be able to just bash together some code quickly that can get things working. While I might dislike it, a "batteries included" approach makes sense here. Go is somewhat similar since it's designed to take someone from no knowledge of the language to productive quickly. Including a lot in the stdlib makes sense here since it's easier to find stuff that way. While Rust can be used like Python and Go, that's not really its main purpose. It's really meant as an alternative to C++ and the various niches C/C++ have dominated for years. In a language like that, where performance is often key, I'd rather have a higher quality external library than just something shoved into the stdlib.

> This is the right answer. I'm willing to stick my head out and assert that languages with a "minimal" standard library are defective by design.

> Standard libraries should include everything needed to interact with modern systems. This means HTTP parsing, HTTP requests, and JSON parsing.

There is another way. Why not make the standard library itself pluggable? Rust has a standard library and a core library. The standard library is optional, especially for bare-metal targets.

Make the core library as light as possible, with just enough functionality to implement other libraries, including the interfaces/shims for absolutely necessary modules like allocators and basic data structures like vectors, hashmaps, etc. Then move all other stuff into the standard library. The official standard library can be minimal like the Rust standard library is now. However, we should be able to replace the official standard library with a 3rd party standard library of choice. (What I mean by standard library here is the 'base library', not the official library.) Third party standard library can be as light or as comprehensive as you might want. That also will make auditing the default codebase possible.

I don't know how realistic this is, but something similar is already there in Rust. While Rust has language features that support async programming, the actual implementation is in an external runtime like Tokio or smol. The clever bit here is that the other third party async libraries don't enforce or restrict your choice of the async runtime. The application developer can still choose whatever async runtime they want. Similarly, the 3rd party standard library must not restrict the choice of standard libraries. That means adding some interfaces in the core, as mentioned earlier.

> External libraries are not for functionality that is used by most modern software.

Where do you draw the line though? It seems like you mostly spend your time writing HTTP servers reading/writing JSON, but is that what everyone else also spends their time doing? You'll end up with a standard library weighing GBs, just because "most developers write HTTP servers", which doesn't sound like a better solution.

I'm willing to stick my head the other way, and say I think the languages today are too large. Instead, they should have a smaller core, and the language designed in a way that you can extend the language via libraries. Basically more languages should be inspired by Lisps and everything should be a library.

It's not an easy problem to solve.

Doing it the right way would create friction, developers might need to actually understand what the code is doing rather than pulling in random libraries.

Try explaining to your CTO that development will slow down to verify the entire dependency chain.

I'm more thinking C# or Java. If Microsoft or Oracle is providing a library you can hope it's safe.

You *could* have a development ecosystem called Safe C# which only comes with vetted libraries and doesn't allow anything else.

I'm sure other solutions already exist though.

Java is around for much longer, has exactly same architecture re transitive dependencies, yet doesn't suffer from weekly attacks like these that affect half of the world. Not technically impossible, yet not happening (at least not at this scale).

If you want an actual solution, look for differences. If you somehow end up figuring out its about type of people using those, then there is no easy technical solution.

> Standard libraries should include everything needed to interact with modern systems.

So, databases? Which then begs the question, which - Postgres, MySQL, SQLite, MS SQL, etc.? And some NoSQL, because modern systems might need it.

That basically means you need to pull in everything and the kitchen sink. And freeze it in time (because of backwards compatibility). HTML, HTTP parsing, and SHA1024 are perfectly reasonable now; wait two decades, and they might be as antiquated as XML.

So what your language designers end up, is having to work on XML parsing, HTTP, JSON libraries rather than designing a language.

If JS way is madness, having everything available is another form of madness.

Spot on, I rather have a Python, Java,.NET,.. standard library, that may have a few warts, but works everywhere there is full compliant implementation, than playing lego, with libraries that might not even support all platforms, and be more easily open to such attacks.

Is java.util.logging.Logger not that great?

Sure, yet everyone that used it had a good night rest when Log4J exploit came to be.

That was a different era. The velocity of change is 100x now and the expectation for public libraries to do common things is 100x higher as well.

Because it's never been considered an interesting target, compared to npm's reach?