Handling IO failure
2013-11-18Let's talk a bit about IO programming. Filesystem, network, GUI... You cannot write useful code without doing IO these days. So why is it so damn hard to do in "safe" languages like Haskell?
Let's talk a bit about IO programming. Filesystem, network, GUI... You cannot write useful code without doing IO these days. So why is it so damn hard to do in "safe" languages like Haskell?
For the first article in the new post serie about "let's pick apart the new kickstarted secure decentralized software of the week", I chose SafeChat, which started just two days ago. Yes, I like to hunt young preys :p
There, I said it. Now you can stop reading. Or you can continue. But watch where you step.
Every week, I hear about a new secure software designed to protect your privacy, thwart the NSA/GCHQ and save kittens. Most of the time, though, they're started by people that are very enthusiastic yet unskilled.
They tend to concentrate directly on choosing algorithms and writing code, instead of stepping back and thinking a bit about what they want to develop.
I often play with group messaging ideas, and recently, an interesting perspective came to me, about the relation between these messaging systems and the constraints of the CAP theorem.