←back to thread

331 points alex_medvedev | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
kgeist ◴[] No.41849906[source]
What does "modern" mean in this context?
replies(4): >>41849987 #>>41849990 #>>41850030 #>>41855909 #
slgeorge ◴[] No.41850030[source]
"Modern" seems to be used a loose adjective these days for "I rewrote $thing [in Rust]". Minecraft was created in 2011, and is Wikipedia says the last version of the 'classic' edition was released in 2017. So anything after 2017 is now defunct.

I don't mind people rewriting things in <insert-name-of-tech-I-like> but "modern" as a value seems pretty loose, and it's often at least arguable whether it's objectively better!

replies(3): >>41850205 #>>41850762 #>>41853865 #
1. lucb1e ◴[] No.41853865[source]
> "modern" as a value seems pretty loose, and it's often at least arguable whether it's objectively better!

Well, there is research on this!

https://security.googleblog.com/2024/09/eliminating-memory-s... writes:

> vulnerabilities decay exponentially. They have a half-life. [...] A large-scale study of vulnerability lifetimes² published in 2022 in Usenix Security confirmed this phenomenon. Researchers found that the vast majority of vulnerabilities reside in new or recently modified code

Where ² goes to https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity22/presentat...

A study limitation is that they looked only at security-relevant bugs (vulnerabilities). As someone who writes code, I would tend to think that this also goes for bugs without a direct security impact, but I don't have the data to back that notion up

replies(1): >>41853976 #
2. Aeolun ◴[] No.41853976[source]
Feels kinda obvious to me? As time goes on bug density can only go on direction, and making no changes to a codebase certainly doesn’t make it go up.