placeholder VS wuffs

This guy wasn't maintaining Python, he as creating a new version incompatible with either Python 2.7 or Python 3.

Red Hat and other large companies have maintained Python for years after 2.7 died (EOL date was January 1st, 2020). IBM/Red Hat offer Python 2.7 including security fixes and bug fixes until 2024 (https://access.redhat.com/solutions/4455511).

Had he just provided patches to Python 2.7, nobody would've batted an eye. Instead, they created an alternative language that was completely different (https://web.archive.org/web/20161210161837/https://www.nafta...).

Founders and core devs indicated that the name was the only problem (https://github.com/naftaliharris/tauthon/issues/47#issuecomm...) and that even things like the header file names could continue to be named Python because of API compatibility.

You can fork any open source project you like, but you still need to stick follow trademark law. You can't just release Linux 2.7 because you disagree with breaking changes in 3.0 either, but you're free to take the Linux code and release Twonux if you really care.

If that doesn't work for some reason, there's this project which claims to be an "active" fork of Python 2, but it also has a lot of backports and additions so I worry a bit about backward compatibility and stability: https://github.com/naftaliharris/tauthon You would have to build this from source as well.

Without developers of the compilers all others groups are pretty much irrelevant. There were lots of people who were telling that Python3 is abomination and some even attempted to fork it but fork haven't caught enough interest thus Python2 is, for all intends and purposes, dead.

Python developers noticed that people are not in any hurry to switch but instead of trying to understand “why” they have drawn the line in the sand and spent their efforts trying to kill unofficial attempts to create a fork.

WinAmp 2 (1998) was widely liked. WinAmp 3 (2002) was considered bloated, and flopped.

So Nullsoft followed it up with WinAmp 5 – because 2+3=5 – in 2003, which was very broadly the codebase of WinAmp 2 (small and lean) plus the skin support from WinAmp 3 (the only part people liked).

This won people back, and WinAmp is still around and got an update this year, 20 years on.

I think it's too late for there to be a Python 5, but I did read a blog post long ago – which I can't find again, or I'd link to it – which proposed a similar compromise fix to Python, in considerable technical detail.

I am with @blagie on this: the Python world handled the 2→3 transition spectacularly badly. V3 didn't deliver enough, and strong-arming people by just end-of-lifing Python 2 and expecting the world to move on was foolhardy and short-sighted.

(And I don't even use the language myself. I'm just observing.)

It's a real shame Tauthon didn't get more traction and support.

https://github.com/naftaliharris/tauthon

If it had got enough support and continued, maybe the Python maintainers would have learned something, but I've not seen any sign that they have.

This is nothing new. For comparison, Perl 6 went so badly that Perl 5 now looks likely to continue as Perl 7:

https://www.perl.com/article/announcing-perl-7/

And PHP 6 didn't really happen -- AFAICT as a total outsider, Unicode support proved too hard and it was never released; the community backported the important bits to PHP 5, and then a new PHP 7, more modest in scope, developed from PHP 5.

The Python world could have done the same, and Tauthon was an effort in that direction.

It's too late now. I suspect that, just as Perl has lost a massive amount of interest and use, partly from the nearly-two-decade-long effort to release Perl 5, Python has done the same -- sabotaged its own community with this high-handed "your leaders know best" approach.

I just can't see a major fork happening (see: Tauthon, a fork of 2.7 to keep it alive, but no updates in a year or so).

If you want forks there are forks. Off the top of my head, Redhat is supporting Python 2 for several more years and there's a project called Tauthon [1] that is "Python 2.8" in spirit. I'm sure there's more efforts I'm not aware of.

[1] https://github.com/naftaliharris/tauthon

Maybe this is what you are looking for:

https://github.com/google/wuffs

"Wuffs is a memory-safe programming language (and a standard library written in that language) for Wrangling Untrusted File Formats Safely."

It could author its format parsers in https://github.com/google/wuffs, and make them BSD-like open source to maximize adoption.

An even bigger change: It could allow users to choose their iMessage client freely. Why not open up the protocol? I’m sure a security focused client would be popular and in the grand scheme of things easy to author.

Perhaps they could open up more of the OS and apps. Perhaps their claims about the security of users and the App Store is kind of BS.

This is one of the reasons I'm a big fan of wuffs[0] - it specifically targets dealing with formats like pictures, safely, and the result drops in to a C codebase to make the compat/migration story easy.

[0] https://github.com/google/wuffs

There are already huffman-decoding and some parts of webp algorithms in https://github.com/google/wuffs (language that finds missing bounds checks during compilations). In contrary, according to readme, this language allows to write more optimized code (compared to C). WEBP decoding is stated as a midterm target in the roadmap.

Specifically, since performance is crucial for this type of work, it should be written in WUFFS. WUFFS doesn't emit bounds checks (as Java does and as Rust would where it's unclear why something should be in bounds at runtime) it just rejects programs where it can't see why the indexes are in-bounds.

https://github.com/google/wuffs

You can explicitly write the same checks and meet this requirement, but chances are since you believe you're producing a high performance piece of software which doesn't need checks you'll instead be pulled up by the fact the WUFFS tooling won't accept your code and discover you got it wrong.

This is weaker than full blown formal verification, but not for the purpose we care about in program safety, thus a big improvement on humans writing LGTM.

> parsing encoded files tends to introduce vulnerabilities

If we are talking about binary formats, now there are systematic solutions like https://github.com/google/wuffs that protect against vulnerabilities. But SQLite is not just a format - it's an evolving ecosystem with constantly added features. And the most prominent issue was not even in core, it was in FTS3. What will SQLite add next? More json-related functions? Maybe BSON? It is useful, but does not help in this situation.

Regarding traces, there are many forensics tools and even books about forensic analysis of SQLite databases. In well-designed format such tools should not exist in the first place. This is hard requirement: if it requires rewriting the whole file - then so be it.

I agree that Wuffs [1] would have been a very good alternative! If it can be made more generally. AFAIK Wuffs is still very limited, in particular it never allows dynamic allocation. Many formats, including those supported by Wuffs the library, need dynamic allocation, so Wuffs code has to be glued with unverified non-Wuffs code [2]. This only works with simpler formats.

[1] https://github.com/google/wuffs/blob/main/doc/wuffs-the-lang...

[2] https://github.com/google/wuffs/blob/main/doc/note/memory-sa...

There are efforts to do that, notably https://github.com/google/wuffs

RLBox is another interesting option that lets you sandbox C/C++ code.

I think the main reason is that security is one of those things that people don't care about until it is too late to change. They get to the point of having a fast PDF library in C++ that has all the features. Then they realise that they should have written it in a safer language but by that point it means a complete rewrite.

The same reason not enough people use Bazel. By the time most people realise they need it, you've already implemented a huge build system using Make or whatever.

I finally have time to try out wuffs (https://github.com/google/wuffs), which I first heard about here on HN. I want to develop a low-level tokenizer for SDF files, a small-molecule structure file format which started in the 1970s, with lots of, let's call it 'heritage'. Wuffs' ability to process near the data, with a coroutine-like interface, seems like a good fit.

I got the "hello-wuffs-c" example to work, which took some tinkering (see wuffs issue #24). That reads a single string and returns an unsigned int. Despite looking at the example implementations for json parsing, I can't figure out how to go from that example to something which handles multiple input buffer blocks, with string tokens that might straddle two buffers.

Nor could I find third-party examples of people using wuffs-the-language beyond basic experimentation for simple binary data. The handful of non-trivial examples I found only used wuffs-the-library, as a vendored component in a larger project.

The lack of wuffs-the-language use after several years seems a strong sign that I shouldn't look to wuffs for my project. Given the 'workarounds' in #24 are still present after 3 years, it doesn't even seem that widely internally at Google.

Does anyone here have experience to share, or pointers to related projects?

Here's an off-topic answer.

Depends on what you want your toy language to do and what sort of runtime support you'd like to lean on.

JVM is pretty good for a lot of script-y languages, does impose overhead of having a JVM around. Provides GC, Threads, Reflection, consistent semantics. Tons of tools, libraries, support.

WebAssembly is constrained (for running-in-a-browser safety reasons) but then you get to run your code in a browser, or as a service, etc, and Other People are working hard on the problem of getting your WA to go fast. That used to be a big reason for using JVM, but it turns out that Security Is Darn Hard.

I have used C in the (distant) past as an IL, and that works up to a point, implementing garbage collection can be a pain if that's a thing that you want. C compilers have had a lot of work on them over the years, and you also have access to some low-level stuff, so if you were E.G. trying to come up with a little language that had super-good performance, C might be a good choice. (See also, [Wuffs](https://github.com/google/wuffs), by Nigel Tao et al at Google).

A suggestion, if you do target C -- don't work too hard to find isomorphisms between C's data structures and YourToyLang's data structures. Back around 1990, I did my C-generating compiler for Modula-3, and a friend at Xerox PARC used C as a target for Cedar Mesa, and Hans used it in a lower-level way (so I was mapping between M-3 records and C structs, for example, Hans was not) and the lower-level way worked better -- i.e., I chose poorly. It worked, but lower-level worked better.

If you are targeting a higher-level language, Rust and Go both seem like interesting options to me. Both have the disadvantage that they are still changing slightly but you get interesting "services" from the underlying VM -- for Rust, the borrow checker, plus libraries, for Go, reflection, goroutines, and the GC, plus libraries.

Rust should get you slightly higher performance, but I'd worry that you couldn't hide the existence of the borrow checker from your toy language, especially if you wanted to interact with Rust libraries from YTL. If you wanted to learn something vaguely publishable/wider-interesting, that question right there ("can I compile a TL to Rust, touch the Rust libraries, and not expose the borrow checker? No+what-I-tried/Yes+this-worked") is not bad.

I have a minor conflict of interest suggesting Go; I work on Go, usually on the compiler, and machine-generated code makes great test data. But regarded as a VM, I am a little puzzled why it hasn't seen wider use, because the GC is great (for lower-allocation rates than Java however; JVM GC has higher throughout efficiency, but Go has tagless objects, interior pointer support, and tiny pause times. Go-the-language makes it pretty easy to allocate less.) Things Go-as-a-VM currently lacks:

- tail call elimination (JVM same)