usbarmory VS thiserror

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

We can utilize third-party libraries to simplify the code above. For example thiserror (https://github.com/dtolnay/thiserror) provides convenien derive macro for Error trait:

thiserror crate makes it easy to do so using macros on CliError enum.

Depending on your use case, thiserror and/or anyhow.

What is the benefit of splitting a proc-macro crate into (usually) two crates, proc_macro_crate and proc_macro_crate_impl? Why not just have one crate? Does it offer any benefits to to overall compilation times? An example of this can be seen in the thiserror crate where there's a thiserror and thiserror_impl crate.

You might want to use thiserror to generate implementation for Error and Display.

thiserror for my error types.

thiserror - https://crates.io/crates/thiserror

I dont think you realize how ridiculous this comment is. Youre comparing 10 lines of Go, with 200 of Rust:

https://github.com/dtolnay/thiserror/blob/master/src/lib.rs

There are crates out there that help you reduce this boiler plate. thiserror is good for creating custom errors and color-eyre or anyhow are good for dynamic errors.