3 ms·

Not sure why this was downvoted. The exact advocates you'd trust in this case are C++ experts who've, through experience, found a better solution. A person wh

Not sure why this was downvoted. The exact advocates you'd trust in this case are C++ experts who've, through experience, found a better solution. A person who doesn't know the core language, saying that another is better anyways, is obviously a flawed statement to begin with.

pdimitar 2y ago
> The exact advocates you'd trust in this case are C++ experts who've, through experience, found a better solution. Did they really? Just hand-waving and saying "use smart pointers" obviously did not work for many other people. > A person who doesn't know the core language, saying that another is better anyways, is obviously a flawed statement to begin with. How did you go from "he's not perfect in his C++ skills" to "a person who does not know the core language"? That's quite the leap and is not arguing in good faith. > Not sure why this was downvoted. Because it keeps repeating a very tiring falsehood: that there are "Rust activists". People constantly conflate a push to use something that objectively reduces several classes of bugs -- backed by researches from Microsoft and Google, and others -- with "they are activists pushing for their favorite tech". Losing those nuances is what makes discussion practically impossible. Just dehumanizing (or de-something-else) your discussion opponents is not a way to go yet the people who insist C++ is the best thing ever invented do it all the time, while playing the victim. As a person who had to moderate forums and chats and real-life meetings, I am not impressed by their discourse, yours and your parent commenter's included.
- blub 2y ago
  I remember your nickname from some quite biased past comments on this Rust topic. Even in your recent history one can find downvoted sarcastic comments about Rust vs. C++ and now you want to be objective and want to discuss nuance. Ok, let's be objective then: * a C++ programmer that is not comfortable with smart pointers in 2019 is incompetent and wouldn't pass any C++ interview in 2014, never mind five years later. * we're not talking about researches from Google or Microsoft, but about bluejekyll which chose a biased quote to make C++ look bad and Rust good, when in the article it was very clear that the core FreeBSD maintainers prefer C++ and do not want Rust in their codebase. There is no nuance to the above, it's a repeated pattern from several HN users which I and others have identified as activism. This is not dehumanising (seriously?) and I've kept things polite.
  - pdimitar 2y ago
    > we're not talking about researches from Google or Microsoft It's an important part of the picture. If the big boys are telling you it's not all hype and there's merit that can help OSS projects, kernels and drivers included, it could and should be used to reduce tension because shouting at people "You'll never force us to use Rust!" is not a mature thing to do (and it's present in a clip somebody linked in this thread). If we can just discuss on merits, things will improve hugely. As it is though, people are being people and prefer to attack others based on emotions, yourself included, as illustrated here: > I remember your nickname from some quite biased past comments on this Rust topic. Even in your recent history one can find downvoted sarcastic comments about Rust vs. C++ and now you want to be objective and want to discuss nuance. This was one recent comment. One. You, my friend, are cherry-picking in an attempt to discredit me. Go and count my downvoted comments, I'll wait. We both know what you'll come back with. I always wanted to discuss objectively and with nuance. Does not stop me being sarcastic sometimes, sue me. :) I am surely showing more willingness to discuss than you however. Good enough for me.

pdimitar 2y ago

> The exact advocates you'd trust in this case are C++ experts who've, through experience, found a better solution. Did they really? Just hand-waving and saying "use smart pointers" obviously did not work for many other people. > A person who doesn't know the core language, saying that another is better anyways, is obviously a flawed statement to begin with. How did you go from "he's not perfect in his C++ skills" to "a person who does not know the core language"? That's quite the leap and is not arguing in good faith. > Not sure why this was downvoted. Because it keeps repeating a very tiring falsehood: that there are "Rust activists". People constantly conflate a push to use something that objectively reduces several classes of bugs -- backed by researches from Microsoft and Google, and others -- with "they are activists pushing for their favorite tech". Losing those nuances is what makes discussion practically impossible. Just dehumanizing (or de-something-else) your discussion opponents is not a way to go yet the people who insist C++ is the best thing ever invented do it all the time, while playing the victim. As a person who had to moderate forums and chats and real-life meetings, I am not impressed by their discourse, yours and your parent commenter's included.

blub 2y ago
I remember your nickname from some quite biased past comments on this Rust topic. Even in your recent history one can find downvoted sarcastic comments about Rust vs. C++ and now you want to be objective and want to discuss nuance. Ok, let's be objective then: * a C++ programmer that is not comfortable with smart pointers in 2019 is incompetent and wouldn't pass any C++ interview in 2014, never mind five years later. * we're not talking about researches from Google or Microsoft, but about bluejekyll which chose a biased quote to make C++ look bad and Rust good, when in the article it was very clear that the core FreeBSD maintainers prefer C++ and do not want Rust in their codebase. There is no nuance to the above, it's a repeated pattern from several HN users which I and others have identified as activism. This is not dehumanising (seriously?) and I've kept things polite.
- pdimitar 2y ago
  > we're not talking about researches from Google or Microsoft It's an important part of the picture. If the big boys are telling you it's not all hype and there's merit that can help OSS projects, kernels and drivers included, it could and should be used to reduce tension because shouting at people "You'll never force us to use Rust!" is not a mature thing to do (and it's present in a clip somebody linked in this thread). If we can just discuss on merits, things will improve hugely. As it is though, people are being people and prefer to attack others based on emotions, yourself included, as illustrated here: > I remember your nickname from some quite biased past comments on this Rust topic. Even in your recent history one can find downvoted sarcastic comments about Rust vs. C++ and now you want to be objective and want to discuss nuance. This was one recent comment. One. You, my friend, are cherry-picking in an attempt to discredit me. Go and count my downvoted comments, I'll wait. We both know what you'll come back with. I always wanted to discuss objectively and with nuance. Does not stop me being sarcastic sometimes, sue me. :) I am surely showing more willingness to discuss than you however. Good enough for me.