usbarmory VS abseil-cpp

Niklaus Wirth, rest his soul, would disagree.

Like would the the selling USB Armory, with Go written firmware.

https://www.withsecure.com/en/solutions/innovative-security-...

Back in my day, writing compilers and OS services were also systems programming.

Not only you can fit Go into a kernel, there is at least two products that do so.

TamaGo, used to write the firmware used in USB armory.

https://www.withsecure.com/en/solutions/innovative-security-...

TinyGo, which even has official Arduino and ARM support, and is sponsored by Google

https://tinygo.org/

Ah but that isn't proper Go! Well neither is the C code that is allowed to be used in typical kernel code, almost nothing from ISO C standard library is available, and usually plenty of compiler specific language extensions are used instead.

> Since 80s everybody designs systems on top of C.

More like since the 1990's, and mostly thanks to the GNU Manifesto and FOSS uptake that took the steam out of C++ adoption being pushed by Apple, IBM and Microsoft.

There is firmware in production written in Go,

https://www.withsecure.com/en/solutions/innovative-security-...

Not exactly but close. No gocoin, but custom (minimal) client based on btcsuite libs. And it is run on USB Armory SoC.

Relocking with your own key is only for experts, it's similar to the USB Armory device for embedded electronics. If you get it wrong you can brick the device, the purpose of doing it is to protect against certain types of boot attacks (like if somebody can get temporary physical access to your phone or even just plant a malicious USB cable which could potentially push malware. If you don't know what you're doing, stay on stock OS.

Plenty of software that is written in C and C++, can be easily done in Go as well, in fact in any AOT compiled managed language.

C++ was born to write distributed systems, nowadays it hardly matters on cloud native infrastructure beyond the OS and hypervisors layer.

This is how Go can be a competitor to C and C++, just like Inferno was basically Plan 9 with Limbo for userspace and very little C beyond the kernel.

And then there are those crazy folks that believe they should ship bare metal AOT compiled languages regardless of others think.

https://www.withsecure.com/en/solutions/innovative-security-...

Of course it can, there are companies shipping products written in bare metal Go.

https://www.withsecure.com/en/solutions/innovative-security-...

https://github.com/usbarmory/tamago

Yeah, it's nice! And Abseil does it, IFF you use LLVM libc++.

https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/blob/master/absl/string...

The standard adopted it as resize_and_overwrite. Which I think is a little clunky.

This may be confusing to those familiar with Google's libraries. The baseline is the Go BTree, which I personally never heard of until just now, not the C++ absl::btree_set. The benchmarks aren't directly comparable, but the C++ version also comes with good microbenchmark coverage.

https://github.com/google/btree

https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/blob/master/absl/contai...

An implementation of call_once that accommodates callbacks that throw: https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/blob/master/absl/base/c...

I wouldn't say it's that cryptic. It's just a few bitwise rotations/shifts/xor operations.

You can see hashing optimizations as well https://www.deepmind.com/blog/alphadev-discovers-faster-sort..., https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/commit/74eee2aff683cc7d...

I was one of the members who reviewed expertly what has been done both in sorting and hashing. Overall it's more about assembly, finding missed compiler optimizations and balancing between correctness and distribution (in hashing in particular).

It was not revolutionary in a sense it hasn't found completely new approaches but converged to something incomprehensible for humans but relatively good for performance which proves the point that optimal programs are very inhuman.

Note that for instructions in sorting, removing them does not always lead to better performance, for example, instructions can run in parallel and the effect can be less profound. Benchmarks can lie and compiler could do something differently when recompiling the sort3 function which was changed. There was some evidence that the effect can come from the other side.

For hashing it was even funnier, very small strings up to 64 bit already used 3 instructions like add some constant -> multiply 64x64 -> xor upper/lower. For bigger ones the question becomes more complicated, that's why 9-16 was a better spot and it simplified from 2 multiplications to just one and a rotation. Distribution on real workloads was good, it almost passed smhasher and we decided it was good enough to try out in prod. We did not rollback as you can see from abseil :)

But even given all that, it was fascinating to watch how this system was searching and was able to find particular programs can be further simplified. Kudos to everyone involved, it's a great incremental change that can bring more results in the future.

Check out https://abseil.io. It offers absl::optional, which is a backport of std::optional.