S_I

5 ms·

1.
by S_I 10y ago
That was then, now is now. Today, at least in europe, big companies do care about standards. Go ahead, try proposing using a Compiler that does not implement any standard like C,C++ or Ada in the Automotive industry. As for the rest, i agre
2.
by S_I 10y ago
>The original Macintosh apps were in Pascal and the MacOS API were all Pascal-oriented. Yeah, i remember using the Mac OS written in Pascal. Strangely enough, i remember it being buggy as hell and crashing pretty often (no memory protect
3.
by S_I 10y ago
Yes, but if a compiler screws my project because of a bug, and the company (maintainer) can't/won't fix it for reason x, i at least have a chance rescuing the project by switching compilers.
4.
by S_I 10y ago
>Want undefined behaviour? C. Want segfaults? C. Want memory leaks? C. Want memory corruption? C. Want to write insecure code? C. Want all of that and a whole bag of inconsistent design choices? C++. Because, yes, one day you will meet
5.
by S_I 10y ago
>The idea is, it's better to develop a great language first and focus on other priorities later[...] Agreed, but when is Rust done? 1.0, 2.0, 3.0? Why does the Rust community talk more about adding optional garbage collection than I
6.
by S_I 10y ago
Thanks.
7.
by S_I 10y ago
Until this happens i will remain skeptical if the Rust community can pull it off without the backing of said industries. On the other i like being proven wrong. Time will tell. > though I suspect multiple implementations will come from
8.
by S_I 10y ago
>And Rust won't work there for a while at least. Yes, and that is why those industries will choose to ignore it for a while at least. Chicken and egg.
9.
by S_I 10y ago
>And I've seen nobody arguing that alternate implementations are undesirable, only that that's hardly a priority at the moment, especially in this day and age Yes, for most developers this is true, but not all (see post above).
10.
by S_I 10y ago
>The Rust team has a very high commitment to stability, and does way more to maintain stability than any other language/compiler I know of (by testing new versions and potentially-breaking-changes against the entire ecosystem) Yes,
11.
by S_I 10y ago
As much as the Rust community does right with respect to the technical aspects of the language, as much they still don't (seem) to understand the non technical problems it has. Do you know which non technical advantage C has? Multiple
12.
by S_I 10y ago
He he, i knew you are lurking somewhere :-). Yeah, i will just have to give it time. Good to hear about the possibility of a LTS release! Any rough estimation about the timeframe? Oh and by the way, the documentation is fantastic.Big thank
13.
by S_I 10y ago
Ah, i see. Of course it is an issue, but it is not an issue ;-).
14.
by S_I 10y ago
Also a reply to serene (one post below). Before i reply, i would like to make two point clear. First, i'm not going to argue about performance, because i've used Rust for personal projects, i can say that it is really (like REALLY
15.
by S_I 10y ago
"Regarding 1., do you completely disregard MISRA-C and the other safety certifications?" Hmm, i don't think i understand that. Of course we do not disregard MISRA-C. I don't know where this impression came from. As i sai
16.
by S_I 10y ago
I do embedded development (for 8051 8 Bit micro controllers), so IMO it has nothing to do with entrenched, and everything to do with with the following (at least from my point of view). But before i explain my reasoning, i will the define t
17.
by S_I 10y ago
"C with a bit of ML sprinkled in" is IMO quite an understatement. ML is all over the place. Personally i would have been happier if Rust had become "C with only the borrow checker and nothing else".But the community deci