I don’t think it’s unfounded. Media codecs have been one of the top sources for serious vulnerabilities. The code is incredibly complex, and takes complex input from untrusted sources.
Decoders are one of the best places for rust because they are both performance critical and security critical.
JPEG-XL couldn’t get off the ground until they recreated the decoder in Rust since none of the browsers wanted to touch it. And the apps that did utilise the C based libjxl ended up hit with vulnerabilities in it.
> JPEG-XL couldn’t get off the ground until they recreated the decoder in Rust since none of the browsers wanted to touch it.
This is extremely misleading. Before they even started work on the Rust-based decoder, experimental JPEG XL support was added to Chrome and Firefox using the reference C++ implementation. Chrome later removed this support for very dubious claims of lack of interest and improvement over previous generation of codecs.
Around that time, Safari shipped JPEG XL support in production, still without the Rust implementation. So the assertion no one wanted to touch it is plain false.
It was actually Mozilla who, a long time after stating they were ambivalent on JPEG XL, brought up memory safety as a major consideration, for the very first time. That’s when the work on the Rust implementation started.
Since the format continued to be more and more supported and talked about, it’s hard to say what exactly were the factors which made Google reconsider their stance. The notion that somehow everyone was super worried about memory safety from the very beginning, and once the JXL team fixed that, everyone was happy to embrace it, seems to come up a lot lately, but it’s terribly distorted and simply not true.
Not necessarily. What’s annoying is these low-effort posts that bring nothing. In some contexts the discussion is worth having, but we can do better than "it’s bad because it’s not in my pet language" groupthink.
I don’t think it’s unfounded. Media codecs have been one of the top sources for serious vulnerabilities. The code is incredibly complex, and takes complex input from untrusted sources.
Decoders are one of the best places for rust because they are both performance critical and security critical.
JPEG-XL couldn’t get off the ground until they recreated the decoder in Rust since none of the browsers wanted to touch it. And the apps that did utilise the C based libjxl ended up hit with vulnerabilities in it.
> JPEG-XL couldn’t get off the ground until they recreated the decoder in Rust since none of the browsers wanted to touch it.
This is extremely misleading. Before they even started work on the Rust-based decoder, experimental JPEG XL support was added to Chrome and Firefox using the reference C++ implementation. Chrome later removed this support for very dubious claims of lack of interest and improvement over previous generation of codecs.
Around that time, Safari shipped JPEG XL support in production, still without the Rust implementation. So the assertion no one wanted to touch it is plain false.
It was actually Mozilla who, a long time after stating they were ambivalent on JPEG XL, brought up memory safety as a major consideration, for the very first time. That’s when the work on the Rust implementation started.
Since the format continued to be more and more supported and talked about, it’s hard to say what exactly were the factors which made Google reconsider their stance. The notion that somehow everyone was super worried about memory safety from the very beginning, and once the JXL team fixed that, everyone was happy to embrace it, seems to come up a lot lately, but it’s terribly distorted and simply not true.
> I don’t think it’s unfounded.
Not necessarily. What’s annoying is these low-effort posts that bring nothing. In some contexts the discussion is worth having, but we can do better than "it’s bad because it’s not in my pet language" groupthink.
you're falling for and/or playing along with astroturfing, that's what's tedious
can't people coping about rust come up with something fresh? always the same dance:
- fake annoyance about <thing> not being written in rust (bonus points if nonsensical, like here)
- if merely insinuated, fake question about what do they mean exactly
- fake surprise about omg why are people like this, the rust community is so bad, wah wah wah
yawn
oh yeah, let's not forget the other classic:
- the rust community is so dumb for thinking <shit they don't think made up for an easy beatdown>
- yeah ikr haha so stupid
every fucking rust thread is like this, and it's unreadable. by intention of course, obviously.
but it's ai / corporations / the government ruining the internet guys! totally...