2 ms·

I normally like your comments. And, sorry, we don't all know that it isn't a magic bullet. Thus the people who seem personally invested in this stuff like its

I normally like your comments. And, sorry, we don't all know that it isn't a magic bullet. Thus the people who seem personally invested in this stuff like its a conspiracy and the one true thing is being kept down by the man. Again, I've seen your other comments. You know full well that it's a problem that other systems tackled with language and hardware support. Why is Rust the one true way when there are other approaches that have worked in the past? Did you see that other comment about using C as "a toxic cesspool that's undermining civilization"? That's a tad much, right? It's a type of technical myopia. Software isn't undermining civilization. We are, by having perverse incentives in multiple areas of life that make it more profitable to prioritize one thing over another. It's also the same kind of stupid that makes people think they are a freedom fighter because they use Debian. It's also boring. So, yeah. Thanks.

vardump 7y ago
I might be biased, as I develop kernel drivers and other low level stuff that must just work. In C and C++. Sometimes some assembler. I've seen very little C/C++ code where I can't find tons of bugs. I've been in the business for over 25 years and gotten tired of this a long time ago. Enough is enough. Even the smartest people in business don't seem to be able to use C/C++ safely. (Yes, C++11 etc. did improve matters, but not enough). Personally I'm happy there's finally at least one language that is effectively runtimeless, C/C++ like performance, significantly more secure than C/C++, C ABI compatible and has reasonable momentum. Rust might be it. It doesn't need to be a silver bullet for everything, just give me more memory and concurrency safety. If it's Rust, fine. If it's something else realistic, fine. It's not cure all, but borrow checker is clearly a major improvement for low level safety.
pjmlp 7y ago
As you might have noticed I wrote "any systems language with bounds checking enabled by default.", so no Rust is not the only true way.

vardump 7y ago

I might be biased, as I develop kernel drivers and other low level stuff that must just work. In C and C++. Sometimes some assembler. I've seen very little C/C++ code where I can't find tons of bugs. I've been in the business for over 25 years and gotten tired of this a long time ago. Enough is enough. Even the smartest people in business don't seem to be able to use C/C++ safely. (Yes, C++11 etc. did improve matters, but not enough). Personally I'm happy there's finally at least one language that is effectively runtimeless, C/C++ like performance, significantly more secure than C/C++, C ABI compatible and has reasonable momentum. Rust might be it. It doesn't need to be a silver bullet for everything, just give me more memory and concurrency safety. If it's Rust, fine. If it's something else realistic, fine. It's not cure all, but borrow checker is clearly a major improvement for low level safety.

pjmlp 7y ago

As you might have noticed I wrote "any systems language with bounds checking enabled by default.", so no Rust is not the only true way.