3 ms·
I don't think the people that use it as a slur actually define it. They use it to mean the language they don't like because they think it has some level of enfo
by DiabloD3 2y ago
I don't think the people that use it as a slur actually define it. They use it to mean the language they don't like because they think it has some level of enforced complexity that takes away from the language instead of being an important feature of the language.
- tptacek 2y agoYes: it's about the distinction between global GC and programmer-defined memory management. GC is about as straightforward a tradeoff as you can make: remove a very large class of programmer concerns in exchange for a different performance envelope. It is not reasonable to argue that Rust's memory management doesn't represent a point on a tradeoff space --- that people suggesting GC languages are better fits for some problems just don't grok Rust well enough. That's a common trope, and it's pretty obviously false, just as it would be false to say that kernels should just supply a GC runtime so we can write device drivers in Java.
- pjmlp 2y agoMeanwhile there are companies doing just that, better let their management know how fool they are selling bare metal real time Java runtimes, Oberon, Go and C# based microkernels. Even more so the fools that given them money for such products. /s
- tptacek 2y agoLook, I know there are bare metal Java runtimes (I've done assessment projects for some of them), I just don't want to litigate the point. I'm fine with a definition of "kernel programming" that fits Linux and the NT kernel and nothing else.
- pjmlp 2y agoA quite reducing view of the computing world.