▲ 24 ▼ Stop using pickle already. Seriously, stop it! (mina86.com) submitted 9 months ago by mina86@lemmy.wtf to c/python@programming.dev 11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] mina86@lemmy.wtf [S] 2 points 8 months ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] logging_strict@programming.dev 1 point 8 months ago (2 children) It's a potential single point of failure. Which have experienced first hand. The rest of the app could not run cuz a non-essential piece was non-operable due to the missing compiled message definitions file or message definitions file was updated but not compiled. So protobuf carries a non-zero risk. Could the app have been designed without an essential exploding binary blob? Most definitely yes! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] mina86@lemmy.wtf [S] 2 points 8 months ago* (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] logging_strict@programming.dev 1 point 8 months ago project cost = sigma(1...n)(risk likelihood of occurring * risk cost), but we aren't discussing every possible risk. Only the one risk. The risk of having to: for the app to work, requires compiled components having to be familiar with setup.py. This is referred to as the sewer, which is what is targeted by hackers e.g. xv maintainers who come later being familiar and can maintain packages that incorporate other languages e.g. C or rust possibly neglecting to perform the compile (but lets ignore this) compiler runs a binary written and maintained by the spy agency Google or Just not doing that The only justification for going with protoc, over other methods, could only come down to data serialization speed. But in that case, wouldn't a rust solution be: not only as fast, but also much safer. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] logging_strict@programming.dev 1 point 8 months ago (2 children) It's a potential single point of failure. Which have experienced first hand. The rest of the app could not run cuz a non-essential piece was non-operable due to the missing compiled message definitions file or message definitions file was updated but not compiled. So protobuf carries a non-zero risk. Could the app have been designed without an essential exploding binary blob? Most definitely yes! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] mina86@lemmy.wtf [S] 2 points 8 months ago* (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] logging_strict@programming.dev 1 point 8 months ago project cost = sigma(1...n)(risk likelihood of occurring * risk cost), but we aren't discussing every possible risk. Only the one risk. The risk of having to: for the app to work, requires compiled components having to be familiar with setup.py. This is referred to as the sewer, which is what is targeted by hackers e.g. xv maintainers who come later being familiar and can maintain packages that incorporate other languages e.g. C or rust possibly neglecting to perform the compile (but lets ignore this) compiler runs a binary written and maintained by the spy agency Google or Just not doing that The only justification for going with protoc, over other methods, could only come down to data serialization speed. But in that case, wouldn't a rust solution be: not only as fast, but also much safer. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] mina86@lemmy.wtf [S] 2 points 8 months ago* (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] logging_strict@programming.dev 1 point 8 months ago project cost = sigma(1...n)(risk likelihood of occurring * risk cost), but we aren't discussing every possible risk. Only the one risk. The risk of having to: for the app to work, requires compiled components having to be familiar with setup.py. This is referred to as the sewer, which is what is targeted by hackers e.g. xv maintainers who come later being familiar and can maintain packages that incorporate other languages e.g. C or rust possibly neglecting to perform the compile (but lets ignore this) compiler runs a binary written and maintained by the spy agency Google or Just not doing that The only justification for going with protoc, over other methods, could only come down to data serialization speed. But in that case, wouldn't a rust solution be: not only as fast, but also much safer. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] logging_strict@programming.dev 1 point 8 months ago project cost = sigma(1...n)(risk likelihood of occurring * risk cost), but we aren't discussing every possible risk. Only the one risk. The risk of having to: for the app to work, requires compiled components having to be familiar with setup.py. This is referred to as the sewer, which is what is targeted by hackers e.g. xv maintainers who come later being familiar and can maintain packages that incorporate other languages e.g. C or rust possibly neglecting to perform the compile (but lets ignore this) compiler runs a binary written and maintained by the spy agency Google or Just not doing that The only justification for going with protoc, over other methods, could only come down to data serialization speed. But in that case, wouldn't a rust solution be: not only as fast, but also much safer. permalink fedilink source parent