3 ms·
That it is atrocious because the project is young, and that it might become less atrocious in the future, is no argument that it not be atrocious. However, my
by Blikkentrekker 6y ago
That it is atrocious because the project is young, and that it might become less atrocious in the future, is no argument that it not be atrocious.
However, my original reply was to this:
> It's a call out to Windows libraries that long predate Rust, and they are implemented in (mostly) C++. They don't provide any of the safety features on any data structure you pass to it. I don't see how it could be anything other than unsafe.
It very much can be, and is often done, it simply isn't (yet )here.
- infogulch 6y agoHating this is like hating a primer-painted part for being grey: you denounce the propose and existence of primer and claim that it should have been painted with the finishing coat from the start. I'm sorry you think the dull finish is ugly, but looking pretty is not its purpose. Its purpose is to bind strongly to the substrate it's on and provide a better surface for that shiny coat you so desire to adhere onto. Primer and language bindings alike.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago> Hating this is like hating a primer-painted part for being grey: you denounce the propose and existence of primer and claim that it should have been painted with the finishing coat from the start. No, it's simply arguing against the claim initially made that there is no way for it to not be grey. > I'm sorry you think the dull finish is ugly, but looking pretty is not its purpose. Its purpose is to bind strongly to the substrate it's on and provide a better surface for that shiny coat you so desire to adhere onto. Primer and language bindings alike. Maybe it isn't it's purpose, but the original post claimed that it was impossible for it to be difference, which is certainly false.