[tob_scott_a]

woodruffw already wrote an excellent comment for this question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39131723

Rust isn't just memory-safety. The type system also coaxes developers towards eliminating some types of logic bugs.

Not all, granted, but it does move the needle.

[blibble]

I think that attitude vastly underestimates the complexity of a typical TLS implementation

(and I say this as someone who grew up on SML)

[tob_scott_a]

> I think that attitude vastly underestimates the complexity of a typical TLS implementation

If you ever get the impression that I'm underestimating the complexity of a typical TLS implementation, I promise you that I'm not. I speak to improvements, not panaceas.

Until the end of last year, I was one of the security engineers that the s2n team at AWS consulted on potential security issues. You will never hear me say anything will magically fix all our problems. Especially with TLS.

However, Rust does bring a lot to the table, so I feel I'm allowed to be excited about not reviewing another X.509 library written in C.

[woodruffw]

This reasoning doesn't make sense. If TLS is astonishingly complex, which it is, then we absolutely want the strongest type system that can simultaneously represent its complexity and afford developer ergonomics. TLS's complexity is a good reason for types that reflect invariants, not a good reason to give up.