Which dependencies are you even talking about? And which ones aren't compete? Be specific. With rare exception, rust binaries are statically compiled, and when there's any dynamic linking involved, it's almost always into a c library. Nobody, anywhere, ever dynamically links rust code into other rust code, so there's no way you're going to have a rust dependency that needs another rust dependency. You know why that is? Because rust doesn't have a stable ABI. So you'll have to excuse me if I call bullshit.
,
And one other question, have you never heard of pip? Poetry?

You guys always have a hate boner for rust and always come up with the dumbest reasons for it that aren't even true.

I think it's more likely the detractors are being fanatical. Fluffernutter is hilariously so, he called the cloudflare developers inept because they rewrote their network stack in rust. Seriously. This is a guy who, not long before that, was telling me how he writes code four times faster than me (which I seriously doubt) and proceeds to talk about the way he writes code, which introduced potential semantic errors, then talks about how he relies on his code crashing at runtime to know when there's a bug in it. THAT is what being inept looks like.

Few people, even here, understand why rust will help you write better code before even looking at the memory safety aspect. It mostly comes down to the enum system and pattern matching ensuring you've covered all of your bases. Can it crash? Sure, but you, the developer, explicitly told it to.

You do realize you're on an American website, that primarily focuses on American topics, right?

If that bothers you so much, you can always go back to reddit.com/r/russia to speak with your comrades. Don't forget to stop by r/americabad on the way.

How, exactly? All I did was point out that you and him are basically the same. That's not a good thing.

And yet they're quite popular in Scandinavia. I think they're just not popular among you wildlings.

Only I didn't defend your bro. Though now that I think of it, you and him would have agreed with each other about Palestine and Peta too.

I know, right? You and him would have gotten along famously.

Nope, that's all you. The only thing I'll give him is that he was very charismatic. He couldn't have gotten where he did if he wasn't. For everything else, he pretty much always did the wrong thing. And I'm not only talking about morality, rather he kept making the absolute wrong strategic decisions. Declaring war on Russia? Stupid. Throwing away an entire brigade in Stalingrad? Really stupid. Joining a war against America? Fatal mistake.

There's practically nothing I have in common with him. But you on the other hand, you'd have loved listening to his rants against capitalism. He also loved putting swastikas on things he hated, just like you.

It's a good thing that none of what you said applies to me. I can say, with complete certainty, that your stance on it doesn't come from anything rational. You're really just as delusional as the "Muskrats" you're referring to. The "side" you're on holds no relevance. Any time Elon succeeds at anything, at all, your brain responds much the same as if you were physically slapped in the face. That's exactly why you feel so threatened by him, that's why he seems to dangerous to you, and it's all because of your ego.

Let that sink in.

Yes, they did. It blew up about five minutes afterwards, but still landed in one piece, which is pretty good considering it was the first attempt, and the second starship flight overall, making it well within the prototyping period of its development.

The attitude at spacex isn't what most people (both naysayers and supporters) usually think. Engineers generally like seeing other engineers succeed, especially with something as hard as space.

The only thing he's dangerous to is your ego, if we're being honest.

Same with starship.

And you base this on...?

How many rockets can you list that haven't had multiple iterations in the design before even making it to prototype? Falcon 9 certainly did. The merlin engine certainly did. Your username is quite appropriate, by the way.

Nobody tried to build starship out of carbon fiber. See if you can figure out what that means. I'll give you a few years.

Also, you likely have it in your head that subs can't be built out of carbon fiber and actually work well, and you, just like James Cameron, are quite wrong on this. It's actually been done, successfully, many times, well before oceangate even existed, not only by the US navy, but by the private sector as well.

https://www.designnews.com/ind...

The fact that it was carbon fiber isn't even why the Titan ultimately imploded. Many things lead up to that, but if you actually look at the way that it imploded, the carbon fiber hull didn't initially buckle, and that was despite how very poorly they built it. The most likely cause was the mismatch of the modulus between the titanium cap and the carbon fiber hull, which eventually caused them to separate. That was made worse by the fact that they allowed it to freeze, and they never properly transported it, even opting to lift it in ways that would cause unnecessary stress to the caps. This is all evidenced by the fact that the glue holding the caps and the hull together appears to have separated cleanly in many spots. Even further evidenced by the fact that the outer wall of the titanium channel sheared right off. Everything that happened afterwards, including the hull shattering, was a domino effect resulting from that.

The problem with oceangate wasn't their choice of materials. The problem with oceangate is that their mindset is remarkably similar to yours: They felt it was a good idea to go to production with the first iteration of their design, and without doing any destructive testing to even determine what the limits are.

It's worth mentioning, by the way, that every starship flight thus far has pushed the vehicle well beyond its intended limits, and in more ways than one. For example, you might have noticed that every launch has been missing some tiles -- this is, in fact, deliberate. As you've already demonstrated that you're not aware, it's a good idea to design, test, and iterate, changing things where appropriate.

No, that wasn't at all why the shuttle was expensive. There are a lot of reasons for that, mainly surrounding the sheer complexity of it and that it wasn't as reusable as NASA thought it would be. As you're no doubt not aware, heat tiles themselves aren't all that expensive. Well...except in the case of the space shuttle, where each one was made to order, as many (most?) had to be placed in a particular position. Starship doesn't have that problem, and even better, they're all made in-house. That latter bit is a huge reason why SpaceX can bring the cost down as much as it does -- most of the cost around rocketry is because there are very few players in the industry who actually make any parts, and they charge an arm and a leg for basically everything, precisely because the industry has had a long history of using cost plus contracts, where the government foots the bill of everything, and the manufacturer is guaranteed at least so much profit, no matter how expensive their suppliers are.

SpaceX, on the other hand, has never used a cost plus contract. Not even once. Elon's mindset is very much that of "That costs how much? screw that, let's make it ourselves for a fraction of that cost." And you know what? Not only does it work, it's also proven. This was literally the same thing that was done with falcon 9, by the way.

They've already done that.