![]() |
![]() |
#41 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,490
|
Quote:
Yes, I did. I learned many nice things about it, though. It's pointer "ownership" concept I consider particularly valuable, even more so as it is close how I work with pointers in C++, so it is pretty close to "what I do". It's for me on the "observing" side, see how it develops, or whether this is just a "current trend". If it is still around in a couple of years, I will consider. I need more than just a compiler to be happy - I need the entire ecosystem, and that includes profiler, debugger, coverage tools and so on. C and C++ are very mature in this direction, and so are python, java etc.., for rust all I can say is "I do not yet know". We'll see. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#42 | |
son of 68k
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 51
Posts: 5,387
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#43 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Druidia
Posts: 391
|
JFC get back to your own thread! I take it back, the quiet was better than this nonsense!
|
![]() |
![]() |
#44 |
Global Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 46
Posts: 32,517
|
Play 'interesting' games, win 'interesting' prizes
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#45 |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,454
|
Your Microsoft fanboy is showing.
![]() Last edited by Pyromania; 22 March 2024 at 18:53. |
![]() |
![]() |
#46 | |
Alien Bleed
Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 4,868
|
Quote:
Rustacean: "C and C++ are inherently unsafe. Rust provides.... long list of usual features trotted out, whereas C and C++ are broken by design, have broken implementations that produce unsafe binaries.... etc." Rustacean: Proceeds to give examples. Me: "Your criticisms of C++ in particular seem to be showing me the defects in the 'C with classes' style of C++ that was common back in the 90's. Have you tried modern, idiomatic C++? Say perhaps C++20 ?" A comparison of language features ensues, resulting in a stalemate where it is apparent that there are no real safety advantages of Rust over idiomatic modern C++. Rustacean: "Well OK, but nobody writes C++ like that and all C++ out there is older and buggier so the point still stands that it can't be trusted to give safe binaries. Rust can be formally proved and ... insert other frequently stated hyperbole here" Me: "Does that include LLVM?" Rustacean: "Of course." Me: "The same LLVM that rustc depends on to compile binaries?" Rustacean: "...." Me: "Then how is it safer? At some point you handed the formal specification of your code to an unsafe compiler binary written in an unsafe language that has bugs and will, by your argument so far, be flawed. Why isn't rust self-compiling anyway?" Rustacean: "The compiler works fine. We have to fix all these other things. Just look at the Linux kernel! It's begging for the type of safety that Rust provides!" Me: "By rewriting them in a language that doesn't necessarily compile for all the targets supported by the Linux kernel? How does that safety work when it has to interface with a ton of unsafe code anyway?" Rustacean: "And all these other terrible, unsafe C++ relics ..." Me: "As opposed to upgrading their code to more modern C++? I mean, rewriting a ton of stuff in a new language requires potentially replacing your developers with ones not only familiar with Rust but equally able to work with and understand code written in a language that many of them seem to want nothing to do with. Oh, and for a much higher salary expectation. Perhaps upskilling your existing engineers a bit and buying a decent SAST package would cost less." Rustacean: "Variables are bad." |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#47 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,725
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#48 |
son of 68k
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 51
Posts: 5,387
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#49 | |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Eksjö / Sweden
Posts: 5,755
|
Quote:
I also enjoy actual high-level languages, and from them I expect a complete abstraction from the hardware platform, and a high-level way of doing all the things I want to do. The simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible, and dependencies on contrived things that shouldn't be part of an OS, or unnecessary non-public APIs should be nil. But this does not happen. The desire for low-level things like C/C++ etc not having died out completely at this point is very worrying. It was the great desire of the 1970s, but we still want to rub the hardware and write lengthy manual code. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#50 |
German Translator
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Drübeck / Germany
Age: 50
Posts: 214
|
it looks like the anthill has woken up
![]() ok, I think an explanation to my message is necessary... This thread was started when no new thread was started or a new post was made here for almost ten days. And at this moment we get almost ten new threads here in one day. So, it the completly the different situation, to the thread name.... But it is no problem, if nobody will understand my humor. Last edited by Rock'n Roll; 23 March 2024 at 11:46. Reason: explanation to my message... |
![]() |
![]() |
#51 |
Semi-Retired
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Leiden / The Netherlands
Posts: 2,064
|
Should i use stmw or use stw?
|
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Best settings to keep laptop cool and quiet? | MartinW | support.FS-UAE | 11 | 20 July 2019 18:11 |
Quiet in 'ere... | meltdown | Nostalgia & memories | 7 | 04 July 2019 12:51 |
Quiet/Low sound on A600 | 8bitbubsy | support.Hardware | 9 | 24 October 2009 10:00 |
quiet ambient mods | Marcuz | request.Modules | 17 | 07 December 2008 11:38 |
wanting a quiet scsi HDD | rare_j | support.Hardware | 8 | 27 October 2006 13:39 |
|
|