> Then they just need to keep doing that for the new code.
"You Insensitive Claude, why haven't you made Thunderbird multi-threaded yet?"
(there appears to be evidence of significant limitations in its understanding of complex code)
> Is it appropriate to cite the old proverb, "Physician, heal thyself" here?
Years before the physician was a fentanyl addict living in a cardboard box on the street you would have been compassionate to do so.
At some point you just can't help people who don't want to be helped.
It's sad because the physician was once a happy baby who gave his mother delight. So much waste of care and resources.
No, I pointed out you were being an obnoxious fanboi
Why don't we expand the bit that you quoted into the entire sentence:
C++ tried to replace C until it became apparent that c++ is only good for making buggy and insecure code that needs to run faster but less reliably than Java.
Remember, this is the full version of what you decontextualized. Now, what about that screams "rust fanboi" to you? Keep in mind that both Linus Torvalds and Drew DeVault have given rust praise in exactly the same way I have, while both simultaneously believe C++ to be a language that causes more problems than it solves.
Let's quote the latter:
Disclaimer: I don’t like the rest of these programming languages and would not use them to solve any problem. If you don’t want your sacred cow gored, leave here.
C++
Pros: none
Cons: ill-defined, far too big, Object Oriented Programming, loads of baggage, ecosystem that buys into its crap, enjoyed by bad programmers.
This is different from what I did...how? And remember, you just argued that he isn't an obnoxious rust fanboy.
Anyhoo, you'd think a rust fanboi would know better given just how much it borrows from c++.
Not borrowed from: Learned from. That's how all successors are made.
Anyhow...
Did you bother to notice how he basically misses everything Linus is saying? Let's take this for example:
A great deal of thought has gone into the STL and to Boost by some very smart people over the course of several years. Their work has been reviewed by countless peers. A typical C or C++ programmer simply will not write anything more efficient or more robust than the methods in these libraries if they decide to roll their own.
That was in response to:
STL and Boost and other total and utter crap, that may "help" you program, but causes:
infinite amounts of pain when they don't work (and anybody who tells me that STL and especially Boost are stable and portable is just so full of BS that it's not even funny)
inefficient abstracted programming models where two years down the road you notice that some abstraction wasn't very efficient, but now all your code depends on all the nice object models around it, and you cannot fix it without rewriting your app.
Worth taking into consideration, by the way, that the original person he responded to was calling his arguments about portability BS, when in fact his comments were spot on, and THIS is exactly why. But more importantly, Boost and STL are building shit upon shit. Why do I say that? For the exact same reasons that object inheritance always ends up leading into a mess that seems good at first, until later you realize that it was a huge mistake, but by then it's already too late -- the damage is already done and there's no going back. You can't fix the problems with either STL or Boost without breaking C++. This is, by the way, a thing Rust learned from: Keep the standard library small and to the point. Rely on libraries to add efficient, reusable tools, that way the language isn't permanently married to past glaring mistakes.
And I love this bit:
For example, once you’ve allocated and de-allocated C structs a few times, you realize it would be good to have functions to do this allocation and de-allocation. You basically end up re-inventing C++ constructors and destructors.
Way to miss what Linus said, which was:
any compiler or language that likes to hide things like memory allocations behind your back just isn't a good choice for a kernel.
And in fact, Rust is proof that you don't need this crap, and your guy is just plain wrong. Why? Well for one thing, rust doesn't have a concept of constructors. It's totally idiomatic to initialize structs right on the stack, or box them, because that's literally the only way you can do it. Heap or stack, it's explicit no matter what you do. Unlike C++, allocating and destructing isn't trying to be magic. See this for more details:
https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomi...
And it's like Linus already said: If you want this behavior out of C++, you're basically just writing C. This page nicely illustrates why without even setting out to do so:
https://wiki.osdev.org/C%2B%2B
And no, this isn't me engaging in a rust circlejerk, rather rust itself IS the proof that the blog you linked to is just flat out wrong on this particular point.
You think anything that challenges your worldview deserves a stupid reply because you can't actually think up a sensible one.
Where exactly are you going with this? The back end of the compiler is written in C++. Okay...and? So is the Windows kernel. What about it? Nobody has to make any changes to the backend compiler to make improvements to rust -- you can literally leave it as-is.
I'm not going to take the time to reply to your (or even read) xenophobia. One cannot of course reason someone out of a position they did not train themselves into.
Dude, you're the one trying to connect me with your 0.01th cousin based on absolutely nothing but drivel, whereas I both qualitatively and quantitatively showed exactly why you are much more like him than anybody else here.
Because socialism has always done such a fine job of that. Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez, and countless other dictators would be so proud that their spirit is alive and well in people like you. Well, perhaps not your plan of solving the inevitable socialist famines with coprophagia, they prefer to just deny it ever happened while the party elite get fat, but pressing non-conformists into your poolag would make them proud for sure.
Nothing infuriates a socialist more than individual liberties.
We can fight every fire individually, or we can institute UBI, or we can admit that we don't give a fuck about other humans and want them to die.
If your economic system says people must be productive to be able to survive, and also enshrines eliminating jobs so that people can't do that, it's an attack on other humans and their only rational response is to attack it with everything they have so that they can be permitted to live.
We've spent well over forty years prioritizing greed over all other possible virtues. We're in one of the inflection points at this particular moment. We can either decide that we have some value other than greed, or we can let society steer itself into oblivion through that greed.
Based on the way things are looking? All our big decision makers have decided to just let greed continue to play its game. Human health and life itself doesn't matter in the face of profit potential for the few.
Or
The bullshit you keep spewing. I already quoted it once. If you lack the mental capacity to remember what you wrote or go back and read it, that's a "you" problem not a "me" problem.
Dude...You're literally the one who took personal offense to what I'm saying over a programming language.
Linus's comments are famously packed full of logical fallacies. As someone with the same mental capacity as Angel'o'sphere it's not surprising you can't really tell.
Every point he made about C++ is true. Disagree? Well...then prove it. Actually, what's funny about that comment is he was responding to a guy who is doing exactly what C++ users love to do: Get royally pissed off any time somebody merely doesn't use your shitty language. Not say something bad about it, just simply not using it is enough to trigger you. Really, read what he responded to -- another one of you dimwits getting pissed off just because it's not C++. Whether that's C, Rust, or anything else, you guys just can't help yourselves.
Even your lord and savior, Bjarne Stroustrup, is well known to have this exact problem, famously getting triggered when NIST (the same entity who set the current standard for most of the units of the metric system, by the way, making the whole thing far more American than you'd ever admit, which doubtless also triggers you) simply made a recommendation only to US entities, primarily government entities, to stop doing any greenfield work with languages that aren't memory safe.
Eh? Unlike you, I understand that different people are different. You're the rust fanboi, not them. They are--and I know you're *really* struggling with this concept--different people.
So what's the reason you were so triggered by my comments again? Oh...that's right...you took it personally when I said bad things about your language. I never even spoke of you at all, just C++. Just like every other die-hard C++ developer, including its founder. You guys can't help yourselves. The fact that nobody wants to carry on what you've defined your lives around pisses you off, mainly because of the sunk cost fallacy.
Again, that's a lot of words for "yes". I didn't say those things, don't hold those opinions. This seems to be a concept you actually cannot grasp which is fascinating!
No. In fact, this is the reason you responded to my post to begin with.
> Oh, that's just the ass end of the compiler.
It's as I already told you: Make a stupid comment, get a stupid reply. How many times do you need it repeated?
You mean apart from sharing the same level of mental capacity?
Again, that's all you.
Not only are you both Eurotards, but you know what's really telling? To you and him, languages like rust are too hard, where to me, it's not only easy, but I use it daily. Everybody who has used both rust and C++ for any meaningful period of time will tell you how much more productive they are with Rust. Not by a little, but by a lot. But because you have such a diminished mental capacity, in other words, the same as that of angle of sphere, rust is just too hard for you to grasp.
You're clearly cut from the same cloth.He's latched onto C
Both of these are factually incorrect. Besides, not only is he German, your king is German, meaning you're the subject of his cousin, or brother, or nephew, or whatever you call the extended but somehow also not extended family inbreeding nobility crap you still officially recognize and have actual archaic written laws built around. Which would make you his lesser, except you almost certainly share about 67% of his DNA, well within a chromosome of insanity caused by who knows how many neurological disorders, as is common with what you guys do there. Think about it: Why is it that all four wars of global scale and scope started in Europe, by and for Europeans?
Neither of you express anything approaching original thought and both of you have trouble with really really basic concepts.
Then explain this: Why is nobody in their right mind willing to pay either of you worth a shit? Perhaps because neither of you could code your way out of a wet paper sack?
They forgot to mention the part where he ordered the company to ignore an injunction, resulting in another injunction permitting US app developers to ignore apple's fees, and apple getting laughed at in the 9th circuit when he tried to appeal.
What's ironic is that feeds his megalomania. Extreme-ego types love that their detractors are thinking about them all the time.
"Living rent-free" is the ultimate payoff.
Best to ignore them as much as possible.
>"I don't understand this trend to use "there's" with singular targets."
Sigh. That was meant to be "plural targets."
>"There's been a few complaints"
There is been a few complaints?
I know English can be challenging, but could the editors PLEASE put forth at least a little effort? I don't understand this trend to use "there's" with singular targets.
There HAVE been a few complaints.
I'm going to assume you're not aware of the incontrovertible evidence done by John Bray and others proving that the "ballistic tests were inconclusive" is hardly the tip of the iceberg. It's conclusive that the 'lone shooter' narrative is false, and almost certain that a rapidly expanding explosive like PETN was involved (lapel mic). There's nothing else which fits the mutually supportive analysis work that's been done.
Nah, I just have a long horizon on my memory. "Wait a second, this contradicts what the media was just saying!" And then I look into it myself. It doesn't take speculation when there's readily available evidence to refute media claims, made by the media themselves.
The media narrative on both masking during covid, and subsequently the narrative shift over the Ukraine conflicts, are perfect examples.
Masking: masking isn't necessary; no wait, only doctors should mask; masks don't actually help; masking is good for you, actually.
Ukraine: Ukrainians are actual Nazis (2013); Ukraine overthrown by the US government; Ukraine is now, somehow, not Nazis; Ukrainians are the good guys, actually, and we have to support them against Russia
(You can do the same narrative progression to sway concensus for COVID lab genesis, the Epstein files, or any of the other things I mentioned. They'll deny it, then switch course slowly as it's acceptable and people grow fatigued. It's plain as day to anyone with the mental horizon of more than 2 weeks.
I'd argue both major political parties (and then some), yes.
Those pamphlets are nice, my state does something similar. It's problematic, however, when both sides are lying outright and it's hard to split the difference without looking at the actual bills/amendments/provisions. That seems often to be the case. It's also common for "one side"s rebuttal is actually the other side's strawman rebuttal, which may or may not be due to either malice or intellectual deficiency.
An algorithm must be seen to be believed. -- D.E. Knuth
