You didn't give any indication you actually enjoy them.

Are you completely fucking stupid naturally or are you actively trying to be a moron? To pick some things I said:

"I like C++, it's fun"

"I love AWK"

"BASH is my homeboy"

"I quite like PIC asm"

"Shader graphs are just fun"

"Oh yeah and scripting complex actions etc in BOOM compatible engines is let us say, barrels of fun."

If you think that's not giving "any indication" that I "actually enjoy them", then you need your head examined because it ain't working right.

  Again, I don't think you enjoy programming.

Of course you think that, you're a raging moron who can't tell that me saying "I love AWK" is some sort of positive preference.

You are the platonic ideal of the C fanatic. You are so blindly loyal to the language that somehow you read "I love AWK" and come to the conclusion I didn't express enjoyment of it because I don't express loving programming in C anymore.

World's moving on, bucko. The new generation and the security community both are aware that a 1970s language is a little bit long in the tooth for 2026.

That's why you became a manager.

Naw I became a manager because it kind of happened via successive promotions. I think quit something like 3 years ago because I hated not building stuff. Now I make things.

You think using a complex language in FOSS has no strong effects on the community?

What's that got to do with the price of fish? By all means continue slinging nonsequiteurs, I can keep it up all day.

Nope.

Yep.

But I usually know what I am talking about

The evidence suggests otherwise.

I have done real work in > 10 different languages and know a few more.

You seem like a 1 year's experience repeated 10 times rather than 10 years experience sort of chap.

You seem incapable of understanding that language complexity is not the important thing here but overall complexity. Optimizing the former and ignoring the latter makes the overall problem more complex. But you seem to be unable to avoid hyperfocusing on the language at the expense of the problem.

So sure you might know 10 languges, but you're a bad engineer in all of them.

Case in point, I bought a bunch of metric bolts and nuts at Amazon, and they wouldn't screw onto each other. They would get to some random point and the nuts would stop turning. Sometimes it was half an inch up,

There's your problem!

But seriously, this doesn't generally match my experience. I haven't bought nuts and bolts there because they're cheaply and readily available locally, though China is obviously more than capable of making screws at scale. So much consumer electronics is made there, they can certainly do that.

It is strictly a market place, so YMMV, but honestly... it's pretty good.

If I respond in a NON LEFTEST way, I usually get banned for 1-2 days.

Oh they only ban for 1-2 days for really racist posts?

They are NOT a free speech place.

Free speech does not mean any particular person is obligated to give you a platform for racism. If you want to be racist in company head on over to X or Truth Social.

I was there for the beginning and in the end they went way overboard on the SJW.

Translation: people did not appreciate my racist comments.

but if you don't know what the compiler is going to do with your code you should have used another language.

I would say this rules out about 99.99% of C programmers from using C then.

The problem is that the areas where the evangelists want Rust to save the world,

Eh? I'm just making an argument about what the compiler is doing.

you're usually going to be doing that.

This is exceptionally doubtful.

It's a mirage.

It is not. Even if we wildly overestimate the amount of raw pointer fuckage you actually need to, say, 50% of kernel code you've still got the compiler eliminating certain bug classes in the remaining 50% of code. That is no mirage.

Most of the time when you can have all the protections, why are you even trying to use a compiled language?

At this point I don't know if you're asking a rhetorical question or if you genuinely don't know why one would want to use a compiled language.

Keep telling yourself that

It's very easy to keep doing because you keep flinging poo without saying anything of substance.

Seriously, Rust and C share an application domain,

Yes.

And Rust is complex.

Yes, and? Never said it wasn't. If you want a simple language, use Brainfuck or Unlambda. Few languages are simpler than those. When you actually think and understand why they are bad languages for programming, you will just get an inkling of why having a simple language can simply push complexity onto the programmer.

Incidentally, I am not a "C fanatic"

Flinging invective, saying nothing of substance? Yeah you're a fanatic.

I think C fanatics are possibly even worse than Rust fanatics.

No debate, no argument, just flinging poo and ignoring the last 70 years of computer science development.

I note you didn't actually address a single point. It's because you know you can't and know you are wrong.

Well, you'd be wrong, but don't let it change your opinion.

I like C++, it's fun. Nice combination of being able to do whateverthefuck you want but also you can program the compiler. C has the former but not the latter, and as a programmer I like to program rather than be weirdly precious about not programing the compiler.

I love AWK. It's just so good at what it does, and amazingly underrated.

BASH is my homeboy.

sed, because sometimes life is too easy

Python and Java are... fine. I like programming in general and they scratch those itches but I don't love the languages.

Machine code a fun once but once is enough.

I quite like PIC ASM on tiny tiny PICs. Don't love doing bigger things in it really.

Shader graphs are just fun.

TCL is the bananas platonic ideal of a stringly typed language and I enjoy it exists. I had some fun programing in it once, but I would not like to do it a lot. It's sort of fun just for being strange and alien but masquerading as a more normal language.

RPN languages (PS, Forth) just never gelled with how I work, but I have had fun with postscript in the past.

MATLAB is a bit aggravating and Octave fixes some of the more egregiously annoying things about it.

Oh yeah and scripting complex actions etc in BOOM compatible engines is let us say, barrels of fun.

But C? I love the language for what it is, an appreciate the artistry of it. But for fun of programming? It feels like being stuck locked out of a workshop with all the good tool in.

If Rust is too complex then so is C.

C pushes ALL of the complexity onto the programmer, whereas more recent languages get the computer to do things it's good at.

It also does not, as Linus has pointed out, prevent logic errors.

That's not wrong, it's also not right either. For example, C has no way of distinguishing between a pointer to an array, a pointer to a single datum and a pointer to an object which might not exist (i.e.one that can hold NULL), and of course nothing about the ownership of the pointee. No covering all the cases is a logic error in C, and one the language provides no assistance with.

In C++ and Rust you can distinguish between those cases, which makes not writing logic errors easier (rust goes further on the ownership side).

There are all sorts of things in both languages which allow you to design your code so that certain logic errors are almost impossible by construction. You still have to design it that way, so the language doesn't per-se "prevent it", but allows you to use the language to prevent it. C does not give you enough control to do such things.

On the other hand, C does exactly what you tell it to do.

Not exactly. It does what the compiler, through blind, fast, accurate and utterly mechanically stupid application of the rules of the standard believes you have told it. The standard has scope to allow for demons to fly from your nose and the compiler will oblige you in that if you accidentally ask it to.

Rust always feels like a constant argument with the compiler (linter really?) where it keeps going 'I understand what you are trying to but am not going to do it'

Well not really because you're saying "I want you to do X and prove Y", but the compiler is telling you it cannot prove "Y" if you do "X". But you're asking it to prove Y. So it's doing exactly what you asked (trying to prove Y).

If you don't want it to prove Y than you can always just temporarily switch off the prover (i.e. borrow checker[*]) and fuck around with dereferencing raw pointers to your heart's content in an unsafe block.

[*]Hey rustaceans no one cares about your language specific terminological pedantry when discussing things which include, but are not limited to rust.

If you have fun programming in Rust, you will have fun programming in C.

Programming in C is a bit of a slog, frankly. You have to do every. little. thing. by. hand, even though there's a perfectly good computer sitting right there you could (in principle) use to automate away tedious stuff.

On the other hand, a standardized package label that tells me how to recycle the package is useful, regardless of how much of that type of packaging gets recycled.

If there's nowhere to recycle it then it's not telling you how to recycle the material.

It doesn't matter if there are no facilities for recycling that type of packaging nearby today. There might be in a year or three.

Or never. It might not be something that's practical to recycle with current technology.

The state can publish a report on how much of each type of plastic is actually being recycled. This is much less invasive than requiring state-specific package labeling

It's also much much less informative. If it isn't being recycled in California, the largest, richest state in the union you can be sure that Arkansas doesn't in fact have a plant capable of separating layered packaging.

But as for what actually is recycled, it seems to me that's on those who collect and manage waste.

What is actually recycled is determine purely by economics of what is practical to recycle. It's shitty reasoning like yours is why things like Tetrapaks are labelled as recyclable. There is no known way of separating the thin,glued layers of paper, aluminium and polythene. It's not the fucking municipalities fault no one has figured out how to do that cheaply.

In the end, I'd hate to see fewer containers labeled as recyclable, because it could discourage consumers from placing items in recycle bins.

Good grief no. Having theoretically-recyclable-but-not-actually waste in DMR bins makes the job at the MRF harder.

A simpler explanation is that this is a biased news report intended to stir up outrage

No the simplest explanation is big companies want to buy laws to make themselves more profitable.

If the bag your product came in has a polypropylene triangle on it (a "5"), it means the bag *can* be recycled.

No, it can be recycled in theory, not in practice.

They want to sow confusion, because consumers don't really know what's only theoretically recyclable versus actually recycled. The manufacturers wants consumers to think they are paying extra for the latter while actually selling them a cheaper version of the former.