4 ms·
Being decades old does not make it out of date. Until a few years ago, the Linux kernel was written using C89. While it has switched to C11, the changes are fai
by ryao 2y ago
Being decades old does not make it out of date. Until a few years ago, the Linux kernel was written using C89. While it has switched to C11, the changes are fairly small such that a book on C89 is still useful. Many projects still write code against older C versions, and the C compiler supports specifying older C versions.
This is very different than Rust where every new version is abandonware after 6 weeks and the compiler does not let you specify that your code is from a specific version.
- koakuma-chan 2y ago> This is very different than Rust where every new version is abandonware after 6 weeks and the compiler does not let you specify that your code is from a specific version. Do you have any specific evidence? Rust ecosystem is known for libraries that sit on crates.io for years with no updates but they are still perfectly usable (backward-compatible) and popular. Projects usually specify their MSRV (minimum supported Rust version) in the README.
- ryao 2y agohttps://endoflife.date/rust https://endoflife.date/rust
- koakuma-chan 2y agoAre you asking for LTS releases? https://ferrocene.dev/en/ https://ferrocene.dev/en/
- ryao 2y agoI was not asking for that. I was answering your question. You asked for evidence of rust releases being abandonware. I gave it to you. Someone else trying to ameliorate Rust releases does not change this reality.
- koakuma-chan 2y agoWell “abandonware” is a strange way to call that because nothing is actually abandoned.
- ryao 2y agoUse language features not considered “stable rust” that are later discarded and you will learn it is abandonware very quickly. In any case, you asked for proof and now have it. You should be saying thank you instead of trying to argue.
- koakuma-chan 2y agoI mean, thank you, but calling Rust abandonware just because it uses a rolling release model is misleading IMO. Also there's nothing wrong with unstable features being discarded, they're unstable.
- ryao 2y agoThe description is accurate compared to what you get from other more established systems languages.
- koakuma-chan 2y ago> Being decades old does not make it out of date. Right, the docs never get out of date if the thing they document never changes. Can you say the same about C++ though? I’ve heard they release new versions every now and then. My robotics teacher didn’t know ‘auto’ is a thing for example.
- jpc0 2y agoAuto as it is now has been in C++ since C++11, thats more than a decade ago... If your argument was C then sure thats a C23 feature (well the type inference type of auto ) and is reasonably new. This is much more a reflection on youe professor than the language. C++11 was a fundamental change to the language, anyone teaching or using C++ in 2025 should have an understanding of how to to program well in a 14 year old version of said language...
- koakuma-chan 2y ago> Auto as it is now has been in C++ since C++11, thats more than a decade ago... > anyone teaching or using C++ in 2025 should have an understanding of how to to program well in a 14 year old version of said language... If the current year is 2025 then 14 years ago is 2011 which is not that long ago. > If your argument was C then sure thats a C23 feature (well the type inference type of auto ) and is reasonably new. Grandparent comment is arguing that Linux was written in C89 until a few days ago so decades old books on C aren't actually outdated.
- jpc0 2y agoDecades ols books in C most certainly is even useful in modern C++23 because you need to interact with other libraries written in C89. When a lot of modern CS concepts wwre first discovered and studied in the 70s, there's no point arguing that old books are useless. Honestly there may be sections of old books that are useless but in the whole they are still useful.
- koakuma-chan 2y ago