4 ms·

Stroustrup doesn't even mention Rust though and neither does the NSA document he was talking about: "Some examples of memory safe languages are C#, Go, Java, Ru

Stroustrup doesn't even mention Rust though and neither does the NSA document he was talking about: "Some examples of memory safe languages are C#, Go, Java, RubyTM, and Swift®."

steveklabnik 4y ago
(The document he refers to has two sections like this, one which mentions Rust and one which does not.)
- garbagecoder 4y ago
  OK but the post is styled a reply to Straustrup, who doesn't mention it.
  - thecodedmessage 4y ago
    Therefore, what, exactly? Do you think Stroustrup is not aware of Rust? Do you seriously think he wasn't thinking about Rust when he wrote this? Even if he wasn't, don't you think he should've been? Do you not think the existence of Rust is relevant to the conversation? Is this discourse bound by some lawyer-like rules where if someone doesn't bring up something that everyone knows is relevant, it's off the table to mention? Should I have filed a form with you asking for permission to bring up a topic not mentioned in the document I was responding to, even though everyone thinking through it with good faith knows it's on topic?
    - garbagecoder 4y ago
      >Do you seriously think he wasn't thinking about Rust when he wrote this? If he was, then why didn't he mention it? You seem to know what Stroustrup's inner thoughts are, so tell me, why didn't he mention it? Maybe he wants to avoid the ten million reply guy Rust evangelists out there (ahem), maybe he doesn't think it's relevant to the discussion for other reasons. Please enlighten me. Obviously, anyone can blog about anything they want to but likewise I can ask questions too. You seem very upset that I asked such a simple question. You might have heard of this phenomenon called "click bait" where people inject themselves into only very tangential discussions to get clicks. Or, in this case, I suspect to preach to the choir. Now, let me ask you: do you have an opinion about what Stroustrup wrote or are you just making sure no one says anything bad about [your_favorite_lang].
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - thecodedmessage 4y ago
        > If he was, then why didn't he mention it? You seem to know what Stroustrup's inner thoughts are, so tell me, why didn't he mention it? As I say immediately afterwards, if he wasn't, he should've been. If Stroustrup thinks Rust is irrelevant to this conversation, he's simply mistaken. It's relevant for bringing memory safety into C++'s last remaining niche, after it's been chased out of most domains already. > Now, let me ask you: do you have an opinion about what Stroustrup wrote or are you just making sure no one says anything bad about [your_favorite_lang]. Let me answer you: Most of my post still works if you replace Rust with Java. That's why I conclude that the time for Stroustrup to start talking about adding memory safety to C++ is 1995, before Rust was even thought of. If you had read and understood my post, you would've realized it has way more to do with what Stroustrup wrote than Rust in particular. Rust didn't invent memory safety, and Rust didn't make C++ behind the times for not pursuing it. > You seem very upset that I asked such a simple question. You didn't ask a question. You made an objection. You started out with a false claim that the NSA document didn't mention Rust, and then you implied that since Stroustrup's document didn't mention Rust, it was inappropriate for me to mention Rust. That's absurd, because Rust is extremely relevant to this conversation, for reasons I explain in the post and here. It's also infuriating, because you're holding me to a standard that sounds like it should be reasonable, but in fact isn't -- this ludicrous idea that replies should be limited strictly to the original topics, even if they can explain why a new topic is relevant, as I do with Rust. So I'm explaining why it's not reasonable, so that the casual reader doesn't mistakenly get the impression that you had a good point. > very tangential discussions I've explained (1) why Rust is relevant and (2) why my post would be mostly relevant even if Rust didn't exist, so it's not tangential. > Or, in this case, I suspect to preach to the choir. I don't see why this is a bad thing, really. Sometimes, the choir wants someone to explain elegantly to them what they already knew, and help them solidify their thought processes.
      - thecodedmessage 4y ago
        > Maybe he wants to avoid the ten million reply guy Rust evangelists out there Well, he doesn't get to. If he's going to imply that one of the major selling points of Rust over C++ barely matters, he's going to get a response. Although you did, by your definition, "reply guy" my blog post with your ill-explained and ultimately unjustifiable objection to it.
  - steveklabnik 4y ago
    He does mention it (and stylizes it RUST for some reason) in the other longer paper that many people also read and came out at the same time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34491731 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34491731
  - JeremyBanks 4y ago
    [dead]

Stroustrup doesn't even mention Rust though and neither does the NSA document he was talking about: "Some examples of memory safe languages are C#, Go, Java, RubyTM, and Swift®."

steveklabnik 4y ago

(The document he refers to has two sections like this, one which mentions Rust and one which does not.)

garbagecoder 4y ago
OK but the post is styled a reply to Straustrup, who doesn't mention it.
- thecodedmessage 4y ago
  Therefore, what, exactly? Do you think Stroustrup is not aware of Rust? Do you seriously think he wasn't thinking about Rust when he wrote this? Even if he wasn't, don't you think he should've been? Do you not think the existence of Rust is relevant to the conversation? Is this discourse bound by some lawyer-like rules where if someone doesn't bring up something that everyone knows is relevant, it's off the table to mention? Should I have filed a form with you asking for permission to bring up a topic not mentioned in the document I was responding to, even though everyone thinking through it with good faith knows it's on topic?
  - garbagecoder 4y ago
    >Do you seriously think he wasn't thinking about Rust when he wrote this? If he was, then why didn't he mention it? You seem to know what Stroustrup's inner thoughts are, so tell me, why didn't he mention it? Maybe he wants to avoid the ten million reply guy Rust evangelists out there (ahem), maybe he doesn't think it's relevant to the discussion for other reasons. Please enlighten me. Obviously, anyone can blog about anything they want to but likewise I can ask questions too. You seem very upset that I asked such a simple question. You might have heard of this phenomenon called "click bait" where people inject themselves into only very tangential discussions to get clicks. Or, in this case, I suspect to preach to the choir. Now, let me ask you: do you have an opinion about what Stroustrup wrote or are you just making sure no one says anything bad about [your_favorite_lang].
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - thecodedmessage 4y ago
      > If he was, then why didn't he mention it? You seem to know what Stroustrup's inner thoughts are, so tell me, why didn't he mention it? As I say immediately afterwards, if he wasn't, he should've been. If Stroustrup thinks Rust is irrelevant to this conversation, he's simply mistaken. It's relevant for bringing memory safety into C++'s last remaining niche, after it's been chased out of most domains already. > Now, let me ask you: do you have an opinion about what Stroustrup wrote or are you just making sure no one says anything bad about [your_favorite_lang]. Let me answer you: Most of my post still works if you replace Rust with Java. That's why I conclude that the time for Stroustrup to start talking about adding memory safety to C++ is 1995, before Rust was even thought of. If you had read and understood my post, you would've realized it has way more to do with what Stroustrup wrote than Rust in particular. Rust didn't invent memory safety, and Rust didn't make C++ behind the times for not pursuing it. > You seem very upset that I asked such a simple question. You didn't ask a question. You made an objection. You started out with a false claim that the NSA document didn't mention Rust, and then you implied that since Stroustrup's document didn't mention Rust, it was inappropriate for me to mention Rust. That's absurd, because Rust is extremely relevant to this conversation, for reasons I explain in the post and here. It's also infuriating, because you're holding me to a standard that sounds like it should be reasonable, but in fact isn't -- this ludicrous idea that replies should be limited strictly to the original topics, even if they can explain why a new topic is relevant, as I do with Rust. So I'm explaining why it's not reasonable, so that the casual reader doesn't mistakenly get the impression that you had a good point. > very tangential discussions I've explained (1) why Rust is relevant and (2) why my post would be mostly relevant even if Rust didn't exist, so it's not tangential. > Or, in this case, I suspect to preach to the choir. I don't see why this is a bad thing, really. Sometimes, the choir wants someone to explain elegantly to them what they already knew, and help them solidify their thought processes.
    - thecodedmessage 4y ago
      > Maybe he wants to avoid the ten million reply guy Rust evangelists out there Well, he doesn't get to. If he's going to imply that one of the major selling points of Rust over C++ barely matters, he's going to get a response. Although you did, by your definition, "reply guy" my blog post with your ill-explained and ultimately unjustifiable objection to it.
- steveklabnik 4y ago
  He does mention it (and stylizes it RUST for some reason) in the other longer paper that many people also read and came out at the same time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34491731 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34491731
- JeremyBanks 4y ago
  [dead]