Aww, so it's not quite in the same league as an etherkiller then?

Look at the wars going on right now. They are war mongers, they just get everyone else fighting proxy wars with each other, to the point where we are fighting a proxy war against ourselves!

And you think GWB was bad?

You said nothing, provided me with nothing, just made an allegation about what I know (or don't know). Basically a strawman argument.

Both (D) and (R) do this. Your view that the (D) don't (or do it less) while (R)s do (or do it more) is why you're a (D) supporter. I see both (D) and (R) doing what you're claiming, equally and repeatedly. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Cronyism is what happens when we stop fighting for liberty. Neither (D) nor (R) fight for liberty. They just fight over which chains to apply. ;)

Here is the point between you two, NEITHER of you know anything. Which is kind of the point. How do we know anything at this point? We can't! Which is kind of the point. We should be ABLE to, but we can't. We simply have to "trust" Hilary (not named after Sir Edmund Hillary {two Ls} ) isn't lying to us ... again. Probably another "vast right wing conspiracy" (what she claimed about Monica).

I'm not convinced she did anything wrong. I'd like to verify what she did was on the up and up. Sorry if I don't trust her word, after all she thinks armed guards protects her email server from hackers.

There was no law against recording conversations or deleting 18.5 minutes of tape either AT THAT TIME

Your point?

I'm pretty sure that without a really nice SSD, and custom startup, you can't get boot to login in under 15 seconds on a BIO/UEFI machine.

And to the Ask /. guy, why not just get a Chromebook, drop it into Developer mode and call it good? It will likely to be less headache than rolling your own custom linux setup the borks every update.

I don't know much about Rust besides that the Wikipedia entry says, however just because some other people use it for comparisons with some other languages doesn't mean you can bash Rush just because it isn't as good as some other language at some arbitrary feature; you're just doing the exact same thing as them in that case. Besides, what other languages are they comparing to anyway?

It's one thing to compare Rust to a language which maybe it was intended to compete against, such as C++. It's another thing to compare it to some entirely different language, such as Lisp or Haskell or COBOL or even Perl; Rust certainly wasn't intended to directly compete against any of these.

Looks interesting. However, I wonder how I might be able to use this, since I can barely write with a pen anymore. I much prefer Swype these days, and can swipe whole words very quickly.

When pretty much every other language out there, including C and C++, can do string handling better than Rust can, the problem isn't with the fact that competition is happening. The problem is solely that Rust's string handling is total shit.

You're kidding, right? I've never used Rust, so I can't testify to its string handling, but I'm very familiar with C and C++ and using strings in both, and they both completely suck. C is absolutely horrible, and C++ is terrible too if you use the standard library. You only get good string-handling in C++ by switching to a library like Qt.

As for what it's competing against, that's just ridiculous. No language is competing against every language out there; every language has its strengths and weaknesses. C is really good at low-level programming that's one step above assembly, but it sucks at a lot of things (including string handling). Perl is excellent at string parsing, but sucks at performance and readability. R is really good at math, but completely unusable for writing an OS. I'm sure Rust fits in there too somehow. The point is, you can't just compare Rust, or any language, against any other arbitrary language and then bash it because it fails. Is C unusable because it sucks at text parsing? If text parsing is what you need, then yes, but if you're writing an OS kernel, then no.

I don't get your meaning here. "Venial" means "pardonable".

Not true, C# has been off of Windows for a long time by way of Mono.

The conventional wisdom here has been that Mono is always a few steps behind MS's implementation of C#, so it's not fully compatible.

I don't know if that still holds true, but it used to be the general understanding.

I never thought that C++'s standard library was very good, but it's a pleasure to work with compared to Rust's.

Rust's string handling is a particularly bad disaster, and this permeates throughout the entire standard library.

Rust's standard library is pretty pathetic compared to C#'s, or Python's

I just don't see why Rust is getting as much hype as it currently is getting.

I'm not a Rust expert, but I think you're trying to use a hammer to turn a screw here. As I understand it, Rust was never meant to compete with C# or Python; it's supposed to be a system-level language, which means it competes with C and C++. Both of those have pretty lame standard libraries and absolutely horrible string handling. If you want to do real string handling in C++, for instance, you'd be an idiot to use the standard library, and really should use a different library. My personal preference is Qt; string handling in Qt is wonderful and easy, and extremely readable unlike some other C++ libraries I've seen.

From what I read on Rust's wikipedia entry, it appears to be intended to serve much like C or C++, but with memory safety. Null pointers aren't allowed.

I wonder how your performance would compare if you wrote that code (the production code I mean) in C++ rather than C. C is missing all those features, whereas in C++ you can get most of them using the appropriate library. Lots of C++ libraries have hashes (I like Qt's implementation personally), and it also has autovivification.

One big factor, here, however, is how similar the language is to ones you already know.

For instance, if you already are well-versed in C and C++, looking at some D or Rust code probably isn't going to be hard for you. However, looking at something in Haskell or Lisp is. A lot of languages these days are very C-like and either imperative or object-oriented (in an imperative way), so to me it's really rather trivial to learn them; it's just a matter of learning what's different. But if you start looking at languages which are really different from ones you know, then it becomes much more challenging. Looking at one with syntax unlike C will be one factor (like with Python), but looking at something entirely different like a functional language will be even harder.