5 ms·

It's not lost on me at all. I prefer to finish software. [1] I get it to where it needs to be and put it in maintenance mode. I don't accept outside contribut

• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• gonzus 4y ago
  I was going to start this reply by saying "I am not necessarily defending / supporting ghoward's position", but after I read his whole reply, I realize I am. I enjoy writing C (more than C++); I do not find it awful. If you cannot accept that, then there is nothing I can say to change your mind. What I don't understand is this atavistic obsession that "everyone must migrate to rust now", and "C is so dangerous in can explode in your hands while you are sleeping". Please, go forth and multiply, and use rust to your heart's content. But be more open minded to the fact that there are people who like, enjoy or even love using C. As for me, I admit I have gone from interested in rust, to neutral, to an active dislike, because this narrow-mindedness some of its proponents show.
  • mustache_kimono 4y ago
    You do you. Maybe it isn't said often enough, but each side (Rust-lovers and Rust-haters) has to be confident enough to allow others to disagree. However, let's be serious, the anti-Rust crowd has not been some bastion of high-minded virtue with its flimsy arguments ("Just write better code..." and "Modern C++ doesn't have these issues..."), mole hill matters of taste ("Egads! The syntax!"), drive by hype hate, and unexplained red-herring cul de sacs ("I doesn't have a spec!" Okay, why do you need a spec?). > I'm defending my position because it appears you all think it's not acceptable. You're wrong. I'm not sure this and sentiments like it represent something less narrow-minded? Most of the time, it seems kinda resentful?
    • ghoward 4y ago
      Because it is. And it is because you all say things that imply people like me are terrible, awful, evil, no-good, very bad people for not using Rust. We are not. We just have different preferences. You all have also implied that we are negligent for using C. I don't know about others, but I have not been. That's why I have the challenge to break a release of my `bc`. I actually have not been negligent because I do put in the effort required to eliminate memory bugs as much as possible. Until the RESF refrains from implying we are bad or negligent for not using Rust, we will be resentful.
      • ModernMech 4y ago
        > You all have also implied that we are negligent for using C. I don't know about others, but I have not been. I’m sorry that people have implied that, but I feel most of the time when Rust people say languages like C should be retired or deprecated, are doing so because your skill and attention to detail does not scale. Maybe you personally have advanced enough to write safe code, and you have the requisite skills and insight to avoid any and all memory bugs, such that your C code is just as safe as what Rust would compile. That’s great. But there’s always someone starting out and they will not have your skills. They will make the use after free, null pointer deference, buffer overflows, and other issues that the C language not only allow but encourage. So the question is: how long do we tolerate new programmers making these mistakes in production code, leading to bugs and exploits for all, when other languages are readily available that would have caught those mistakes before reaching production? C was released 50 years ago, and in the intervening time a lot has been learned about how to write programs, and what language features are desirable in enforcing those practices. We also learned that when practiced aren’t enforced, they aren’t followed. So “just write modern c++”, which is espoused throughout this thread, doesn’t work to make c++ code safer, because it’s not enforced. Not taking advantage of those lessons learned seems like folly, irrespective of how bug-free your particular C codebase is.