First, methodically translating from one high level language to another is transpile, not cross-compile. Second, there is no "unsafe" target. Third, DARPA has been working on it for a long time already, their endgame is to have it create safe rust. Fourth, every time you open your mouth about Rust you just prove more and more that you know even less about it than you think you do, yet somehow you've convinced yourself that you're qualified to make broad statements like this.

Get rid of inheritance, replace it with pure composition, and you'll have successfully removed C++'s non-standard and broken OO model from your already bad C++ code. Then porting to rust will depend on what version of C++ your code was originally written in, assuming the whole thing was written against just one version, which is a bad assumption to make with code that old. That in turn is made worse by the fact that every 7 years or so the latest C++ dialect becomes in many ways unintelligible from two dialects before it. Either way, in the process you're going to find places where your C++ code was already unsound if not completely broken in a way that nobody had yet discovered. You're going to have to fix it, often doing stuff like adding checks for conditions (such as bounds checks or invalid states) that had previously occurred to nobody, and had it not been for rustc pointing them out and refusing to compile, you may never have found them until after they were already exploited.

As I mentioned earlier, Microsoft started going all in on Rust after rewriting their font renderer (a major source of bugs on basically every OS) in it turned out to be quite successful.

This is actually one argument Google made for deprecating C++ in favor of Rust. C++ tends to be that if somebody other than the original maintainer makes changes, they can really break shit in totally unexpected ways without anybody realizing it. A major contributor to that is OOP inheritance, which isn't a thing in Rust, and the fact that C++ lacks exhaustive pattern matching (C++ doesn't have pattern matching at all.)

That's easy to say if you don't maintain any of that code. Fixing such bugs will often break so many things that it's either just not even worth fixing, or you have to emulate old bugs to avoid breaking old software. Literally every OS on the planet inevitably runs into this issue. Linux has to emulate old bugs in many cases in support of the "never break user space" rule.

https://lwn.net/Articles/96253...

Supposedly this is what came of their effort to rewrite the font renderer in Rust, which was apparently a resounding success. Which makes sense, because historically, font rendering is a major pain point. Shit, just a few months ago iOS fell victim to a font exploit, and a year before that there was another major iOS exploit that again involved a font bug as part of the kill chain. Earlier this year, a vulnerability in FreeType on Linux was being actively exploited.

Most of them are C++ developers who refuse to face the fact that they've spent years and years trying to master a language that was poorly defined to begin with. They take pride in how good they think they are at academically understanding how to avoid and/or fix bugs that were only made possible by the one language they've committed their lives to, to the exclusion of all others. A language has come along and decisively proven that none of this crap they pride themselves upon was ever necessary to begin with, and that frightens them.

Now that many companies and projects, including Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Linux, Cloudflare, and the US government (this list keeps growing, by the way) have sworn off and/or even taken active steps to deprecate their language, rather than acknowledging that they've fallen victim to the sunk cost fallacy, they've decided to heed Bjarne Stroustrup's "call to arms" memo, and spread FUD about Rust in a vain effort to contain this "cancer". Currently, they're in the denial stage.

Eventually, after a few decades, they'll reach the acceptance stage after it's undeniably obvious that they're the new COBOL developers.

Let's assume for a second that this is true, and they have to literally encapsulate the entire thing in unsafe (which is absurd as this repeatedly made claim by C++ developers is total bullshit, but let's go with that for argument's sake.) Unsafe rust is still a HELL of a lot more safe than C++. Among other things, RAII is still enforced, whereas with C++ not only is it optional, most C++ developers are very bad at sticking to it even when they try. Unsafe rust still provides type safety, temporal safety, and data race safety unless you explicitly do something (which is always obvious, by the way) to circumvent them -- these actions are NEVER done implicitly.

Strangely, the only people who don't understand this, even after it has been explained to them multiple times, all seem to be C++ developers. Which is probably why all three of these are concepts that Bjarne Stroustrup only has vague ideas about implementing in C++, but more than likely never will.

Literally, the only reason Rust isn't object-oriented is that it doesn't have a concept of inheritance. Why? Because inheritance is an anti-pattern.

https://softwareengineering.st...

Wrong. It's not OO, and it doesn't even want to be, nevermind some kind of "non-standard OO". It has many concepts people often think of as "object oriented", except they're not.

https://www.thecodedmessage.co...

And what exactly is "non-standard OO"? C++ allows multiple inheritance, whereas JavaScript, Java, C#, and others do not. Why don't they? Because it's an even worse anti-pattern that even those shitty languages have the good sense to stay away from.

Rather, C++ is "non-standard OO".

If you're coming from C++, then without a doubt you've picked up some pretty bad habits that you now have to unlearn. Why? Because the language actively encourages the use of anti-patterns. In fact, its own namesake is an anti-pattern. When you pick up C++, everything looks like an object oriented nail, that inherits needle, that sometimes inherits metal, that inherits atom, that inherits proton, neutron, and electron, and those in turn inherit quark, that inherits...Fuck.

And C++ developers wonder why nobody wants them to touch the Linux kernel, or why other systems language developers say that keeping C++ out also keeps out bad programmers.

It has two meanings, neither of which has anything to do with corrosion. One is RobUST, the other is the name of a highly adaptive and parasitic fungus.

Contractually, they very much do.

False. This isn't like your beloved Nazi land where only the guy with all the assumed power gets his way on everything. There are a lot of reasons why this doesn't work the way you think it does, (among other things, the board of directors don't get to make all the decisions for the company, rather its legal representative does) but the biggest concern here is IP transfers. The joint venture has to be given rights to the IP in China in order to actually use them. And, even if you have ALL the voting shares, you still have a fiduciary responsibility to those who share an equity stake, which also means that trying to revoke those rights is going to fail as it devalues the company, thus going against your fiduciary responsibility.

Well, they are in Chinese, a language I don't speak. But here's a summary:

https://www.lexology.com/libra...

Knock yourself out.

No, it's an analogy. I'm describing it in terms that I thought you're familiar with. But obviously I was mistaken, and I should have known because you've already proven that you're not even a software developer. Not a competent one, at least.

Nope. In fact, even majority shareholders can't. Authorized representatives of the company can, however, even if they own no shares at all. In the United States, Even if you control 99% of a company, taking company money for personal use can get you arrested for embezzlement. If you're a 100% owner, it could be tax fraud rather than embezzlement. This isn't like your Nazi land, where the man at the top gets to do whatever he wants with impunity, just like your fuhrer stated about Fritz Kuhn when he committed embezzlement. It doesn't work that way in China, either. Though in China, those in power can look the other way if it suits them.

Nope. When I post, you always see my username.

Oh, for sure. Like that time rsilvergun tried ziplining:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts...

If that's true, that basically solves your problem, does it not? You don't need them, they don't need you. You can go your separate way from them, and live happily ever after. You are neither slave nor serf. You are just you.

This does not follow your previous assertion. You said they don't like to compete and they don't like being dependent on consumers. What the hell would they need with a feudal system and militaries if they're off on their own, doing their own thing?

Drones are now effective anti-tank weapons. They're also easy for just anybody to build.

Socialism doesn't fly because it just doesn't work. It never did. In the absence of an authoritarian government to enforce it, it just falls apart. Gorbachev, like every other socialist, including the guy who dreamed up the scheme to begin with, just assumed that going into socialism is inevitable, and once in socialism nobody would ever want to go back to capitalism. Until Eastern Europe did exactly that once their authoritarian governments lost their legitimacy. The only countries remaining under socialism to this day are still authoritarian governments.

But you said, and I quote "they are[sic] absolutely done with capitalism", remember? Elon already replaced you with grok and optimus robots, according to you. He certainly didn't need you before, and especially doesn't need you now. Of course, you're going to have to figure out how to feed yourself once you've run out of his detritus.

He's basically leaning into classic Maoist thought: If any person isn't useful to him personally, then they're either a counterrevolutionary, or at best a distraction from the revolution. Either way, they need to be flogged in public, if not executed, and have all of their stuff taken away.

It's called projection.

To this day I don't understand what makes old people like you fantasize about being oppressed. Sure, when you're young, you're more likely to have a sense of adventure, seeking glory on the battlefield, etc. This is, after all, what motivated german youth to fight for their Kaiser, and again to fight for their Fuhrer. It's also what motivated the youth in Mao's china to kill their teachers, because apparently intellectualism is a tool of oppression. And of course, it motivated the bolsheviks to kill and enslave anybody who Stalin declared the enemy of the people for the glory of the revolution. Happened in the Iranian and Cuban revolutions too.

But when you're older, and you've had the benefit of learning from hindsight like this, especially while living in a high-technology free society where all of this information is available at your fingertips any time you want it, uncensored, why would you continue going down what history has always shown to be a very destructive path? The only explanation I can come up with is that such old people, like yourself, are simply incapable of learning from past mistakes. Sure, there's some neuroplasticity involved that makes even entertaining viewpoints outside your preconceived notions difficult, but far from impossible. And yet here you are. So I wonder if there's something else wrong with you, like a pathology.

We do know a few things:
- Chronic alcoholism, FASD, and related conditions before and during soviet times https://www.sciencedirect.com/...
- Maoism came at the tail end of the opium wars
- Devout socialists such as yourself and Bernie Sanders both have FASD

Of course, this isn't to say that correlation is causation by any stretch, but the strong correlation in your case is undeniable all the same. So that does strongly hint at there being a causal effect, or at the very least, a common pathway.