Why not object capability languages: https://blog.plan99.net/why-not-capability-languages-a8e6cbd...
replyNo. Object-oriented brings things many languages cannot use. Also, that was a tl;dr fluff blog with barely any examples.
replyFirst we need capability-based OSes, like we should have had decades ago if worse-is-better hadn't stuck us with Unix. I don't need to care whether or not a program was written in a capability-aware language if the OS fundamentally takes care of that for me.
replyHarmonyOS is a capability based OS. I don't know why anyone in China is still using Rust. The biggest social engineering hack was for the Rust team to convince developers that it is a safe language.
replyActually HarmonyOS NEXT is getting its language as well, Cangjie.
replyhttps://cangjie-lang.cn/en/docs?url=%2F1.0.0%2Fuser_manual%2...
FreeBSD does this with Capsicum: https://wiki.freebsd.org/Capsicum
reply1. seL4 exists. I haven't seen much more formal and rigorous than it. Efforts have ported the Linux kernel and RTOS-things to it.
reply2. Add syscall(s) to POSIX, which encourages *nix adoption, with an API like the following:
- Drop capabilities for thread/process except allow list.
- Test if current thread/process has all listed capabilities.
- List should be able to represent capabilities and their attributes, much like a single unveil() OpenBSD call, maybe as an array of/pointer to struct.
- (Program crashes if syscall capability is missing.)