This article is about OO+[bad language design/patterns]. You can do OO without sharing state with your parent(s).
Excellent article! One question though: > A better approach is to use a “set-then-get” mindset, relying on atomic operators that implement locks in a very performant fashion, allowing you to quickly increment and check…
> Google has advocated the deprecation of SHA-1 for many years, particularly when it comes to signing TLS certificates. Why? Was it in anticipation of this attack specifically?
This article is about OO+[bad language design/patterns]. You can do OO without sharing state with your parent(s).
Excellent article! One question though: > A better approach is to use a “set-then-get” mindset, relying on atomic operators that implement locks in a very performant fashion, allowing you to quickly increment and check…
> Google has advocated the deprecation of SHA-1 for many years, particularly when it comes to signing TLS certificates. Why? Was it in anticipation of this attack specifically?