Thereâ(TM)s not going to be a jump forward like Rust any time soon. And thatâ(TM)s because of computer science and logics, not sociology. Rust uses a variation of affine logic to prove memory safety and other critical properties at compile time. And relevant logics arenâ(TM)t invented very often at all. The jump from C whose design isnâ(TM)t underpinned this way to Rust is not going to come again. Rust is the first language to bring memory safety without a runtime system to a practical language.

Windows famously doesn't overcommit virtual memory. Unless you have evidence this has changed recently? (A thread on Windows can run out of memory by hitting its stack's guard page but that's not really the same thing.)

Memory safety requires perfection, all the time. If you call everyone incompetent who ever makes a mistake, no matter how subtle, then who is left as competent? You?

That's the first time I've heard that particular criticism of Go.

You really think the developers of Chromium are just incompetent? Maybe there are other reasons why the code has memory safety bugs.

> The dirty secret of garbage collection is that in complex systems, it makes memory management harder.

Garbage collection is just fine for lots of complex systems. But there are situations where it's not a good fit.

> It's less effort than learning a new language that STILL needs you to interface with C++ for the things that the language deems unsafe but is still required to do real work.

Rust does not require you to interface with C++ except to use existing C++ libraries. It does not require going outside the language to use unsafe constructs. But calling out from Rust is inherently unsafe in the sense that the compiler cannot offer any safety guarantees about the code you're calling.

Rust is hard work though.

There literally is such a thing as memory safety.

Rust doesn't sacrifice those things. Nor does it make things slow. Nor does it need to call out to C, though it very often uses existing libraries. Sometimes, Rust libraries use unsafe blocks but that's no worse than writing C.

It sacrifices apparent simplicity. And it sacrifices some compile time. It's harder to use than, say, Javascript. Rust is often a good deal.

The 8.3 thing is an extra thing for backward compatibility. It's never been the real name in NTFS. The case-aware-but-not-case-sensitive thing is true though. Windows delegates a lot of logic to the filesystem (which is one reason why file access can't be as fast on Windows as Linux and therefore a big motivation for WSL 2).

Things materially changed since that statement was made.

Respectfully, the onus is on you to provide evidence for your statements.

Because they are 2nd class citizens in the UK and would be 1st class citizens in the EU.

As https://slashdot.org/~darkain says, Windows can most certainly load multiple versions of the same DLL. Your accusation is completely accurate for Windows 95 and earlier and partially accurate up until Windows Vista. But not since.

Darkain's wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It's true that GNU/Linux uses soft links to the latest version. What you might not know is that Windows also uses links (albeit hard ones), see:
https://blogs.technet.microsof...

That should be fixed in 1903. And since WSL 2 is an actual Linux kernel, things will be getting more Linuxy.

> There are no unsafe languages, just unsafe developers.

In a technical sense, you're wrong, there are indeed unsafe languages.
https://courses.cs.washington.... .

In a wider, sense, you're right: there are indeed idiots in the world. Though that point is trivial and ignores the fact that there are many people who are not idiots. Even the people who are not idiots make mistakes sometimes. Computers, by contrast, do not make the same kinds of mistakes.

> And why should we pay attention to someone who cannot spell codebase ( TFS author corrected the blog post) nor take the time to use a spell checker when writing a post about how a particular programming language is unsafe?

Because he's an expert, his points are salient and Rust is genuinely new tech. This site is, at its best, about new tech.