Comments by "Anony Mousse" (@anon_y_mousse) on "Low Level" channel.

  1. Most important message to be conveyed here, never trust user input. Always check it, always restrict what you do with it.
    2200
  2.  @tiranito2834  I'm starting to think that all the people not understanding why GC would be bad for spacecrafts just don't understand how GC works.
    102
  3. You should post the generated code somewhere and add a link to it in the description. I have a feeling that there's more vulnerabilities in the first example than just a possible buffer exploit, such as not flushing the file buffers possibly causing an issue with subsequent reads, and the most obvious issue which you hinted at but didn't expand on about file permissions. Running as root would give remote access to all the files on the system.
    65
  4. My favorite seed for rand() is 42. When you use that seed it returns a string that says "The answer to life, the universe and everything".
    63
  5. It annoys me when people group C and C++ together as though they're the same language. It was already easy to make a program that was valid in one but invalid in the other by C99, but now it's nearly impossible to not hit that wall. Java kind of pisses me off due to how little foresight they had in designing it. Not merely removing goto but making it a reserved keyword that generates an error at compile time, and then they had to add functionality to break and continue just to make up for the deficiency which caused a lot of problems that C++ already solved but in a more elegant way while still allowing you to use goto for those problems where it was still somewhat necessary. I guess what I'm driving at is that these ideological stances that people take based on inexperienced programmers misusing tools leads to garbage language design as well as garbage program design and I wish the lies that perpetuate them would stop cropping up. The old Knuth quote about premature optimization really irks me too.
    59
  6. The program `strings` is exactly why if I want to protect my own programs I just encode my own strings. I don't always write things that I want to protect, but it's still fun to play with different methods of encoding to stave off passive RE.
    41
  7. It would also be helpful to demonstrate how to write test cases and how best to separate into multiple modules. Also, you should check the number only once when read in from the user as well as stop using magic numbers. Might also want to demonstrate using `gdb` even if your program isn't crashing.
    40
  8. I wonder how easy it would be to build a terminal from scratch. It's not like satellite communication is hard, just need to know the frequencies and be able to scan for it, then figure out the protocol, which would likely involve figuring out how they encrypt their communications, assuming that they do that. Never underestimate the stupidity of some programmers.
    32
  9.  @AnttiBrax  I'll say it again, but banning is absolutely the wrong approach. The person being "toxic" to Lasse wasn't even the same ID that became the new maintainer. That ID was only ever nice and helpful. Whether it was multiple people or one very dedicated person is irrelevant, as is whether it was a state sponsored attack. The fact is that the ID which was used to compromise everyone was only ever nice.
    30
  10. I'm sure you've already figured it out by now, but the lower power draw is because the Go program isn't spending that much time freeing memory. It's kind of a lazy evaluation technique for free(). I would be interested in long term averaging of the power consumption, as I'd bet it would even out. Though, I'd rather use C++'s technique of automatically calling destructors when objects fall out of scope. Then you'd have more memory readily available when you need it for repeated allocations. Using a GC may lead to hitting that boundary too often and having to wait on it to run the collection thread. Slowdowns like that should probably be avoided in an embedded context.
    29
  11. If enough people keep making this error they'll just change the dictionary. Sad.
    29
  12. This is an interesting idea, but I'll say it again, the actual biggest source of errors is not checking user input. If you use gets() or if you use scanf() in that way, you are not checking user input at all. That is the real error. The memory corruption is merely a side effect of what you've already done wrong.
    23
  13. This is pretty cool, though if you wanted to make it easier to follow I'd do it outline instead and get syntax highlighting. I prefer nasm syntax over gas Intel, but at least you didn't do it with AT&T syntax. That would've been the worst.
    17
  14.  @Leonhart_93  No, sarcasm doesn't depend on brevity. But if you seriously meant that, then you have no clue how a lot of things work, and that's just plain sad.
    15
  15. This is why a static analysis tool, such as Valgrind, should be mandatory for every large and/or important project. Just not for every build cycle.
    14
  16. You should be using sizeof() instead of hard coding magic numbers. Magic numbers make it even more of a PITA when you need to send different types. Ideally you should also be abstracting that somewhat with macros.
    14
  17.  @damouze  Most people probably won't understand this, but cache invalidation can be worked around, while branch prediction can't. Security vulnerabilities caused by it can be, but then it invalidates every advantage that the branch prediction gets you. The speed increases really aren't that much unless you have tons of long-running very tight loops. Most long-running loops aren't so tight as to benefit from this, and most tight loops don't run long enough.
    14
  18.  @gavintantleff  Interesting non-rebuttal, but honestly you can't dispute the truth. If you don't support the right to free speech, even for people you disagree with and who say distasteful things then you don't support freedom. If you don't support the right to self defense, then you don't support anyone's right to life, even your own. If you wish to reply, go for it. In fact I encourage it, even if it's likely you'll just respond with a strawman.
    13
  19.  @Leonhart_93  Are you being sarcastic? I'm assuming you are given the "Pffft", but it's hard to tell, because some people really are that stupid and misinformed.
    11
  20.  @Leonhart_93  If you had any clue how memory worked and how GC's actually manage it, you'd realize that it's a completely ridiculous statement to say that multiple cores or even just processes will prevent stutters from a collection cycle. If you knew how rockets were actually engineered, you'd know how stupid it is to say that rockets don't have limited RAM. With the weight restrictions being down to the gram, they're not going to just slap a 64 gig stick of RAM in there and call it a day.
    11
  21.  @Leonhart_93  I probably don't need to say it again, but you have no clue about the real world.
    11
  22. Seems like nearly every video I'm warning about magic numbers. He really needs to tighten up his examples.
    11
  23. To clarify, it's not that C, or for that matter C++, are unsafe languages, rather that too many programmers are unsafe. Rust doesn't actually provide a guarantee about safety, regardless of what its proponents will say, but it makes it slightly more difficult to do certain unsafe things by mistake. However, if you have to use an unsafe keyword, already a design mistake there, then you're going to be without certain protections. If you have to abstract around the use of the unsafe keyword it separates your code in an unnatural way that will make it harder to debug. So either you overuse the unsafe keyword and constructs that go with it, or you abstract. Neither is good, especially at kernel level. What we really need is better programmers who actually understand the underlying hardware and can write safe code. The most prevalent errors that programmers make are ones that are super easy to prevent, regardless of language. At least if you're not a dingus.
    11
  24.  @DrewTNaylor  I have to admit, my expectations have been subverted, because I never expected to see racism here.
    11
  25.  @shanehanna  No, don't use ChatGPT or any LLM, especially not if you're trying to learn how to program. It isn't a sentient being and will be incapable of finding deep mistakes. It's better to learn from a sentient being which can point out these deep mistakes.
    11
  26. Thanks for reminding me that I'm old.
    10
  27.  @mieszkomazurek3033  I keep telling people that, but it's a lost cause because no one learns.
    9
  28. I disagree with the assertion that the language is great. It's not C after all.
    9
  29.  @QUINTIX256  Given that they didn't use any such ableist slur, as if that's an actual thing, and with you calling people with firearms toxic, I'm inclined to think you're not actually armed or a supporter of equality, which is ironic because you actually are toxic.
    9
  30.  @Those_Weirdos  Great response. "He had to run it as root", but not if he'd taken either of these two steps I'm enumerating that prove he didn't have to.
    9
  31.  @ybergik  Yeah, I'd rather see them with an AR15, at least something American designed, if not built, but preferably built as well, especially if the conference occurs in the US.
    8
  32. @Sinneslöschen And Valgrind for what the compiler doesn't catch. And a programmer should never think they're safe by using a programming language, that's a failing of Rust, IMO.
    8
  33. Now you just need to make some vacuum tubes and silicon transistors and you'll be set to really do low level learning.
    8
  34.  @BilboSwagginsTheThird  How about if the keyword were skip_rest_of_loop_resume_from_top?
    8
  35. For security's sake, our government, whether through the FDA or by crafting new legislation, should require that all medical devices are open, in source, firmware and hardware. Anything less is honestly malfeasance on their part. Anyone that thinks otherwise should probably be monitored with one of these devices.
    7
  36. So basically C++. I would argue that C needs to have its own scope related lifetime mechanisms, which you can already do manually anyway, but C needs some syntactic sugar to make it as clean as C++, and I would argue that C++ syntax here looks better than Rust, despite C++ in general being ugly.
    7
  37. Did you seriously pronounce claripy as clari-pee? I think I'm going to pronounce Python as Pee-Thon from now on.
    7
  38.  @rj7250a  More like C++ if it had worse syntax. I thought C++ had disgusting syntax until I learned Rust. Now I know where all the brain damaged people that learned Haskell went. Moral of the story is, you actually can have a worse language and Rustaceans have shown us the way.
    7
  39.  @psd993  You overestimate the complexity. Off the shelf components can be used for the bulk of satellite communications. Once you've found the frequencies, which aren't hard to scan for, you can hack on it. The hard parts are the protocol and whatever encryption they use, which can be done by one person without a degree. Obviously encryption won't be broken by just attempting to run every combination, but that's where humint and packet sniffing come into play. Some dingus on the network with the password of 'drowssap' will make it considerably easier. The protocol having "bugs", as in thinking it's secure just because "no one can guess the frequency we're using" or "if you've passed secret packet 43 you must be authorized" are only stumbling blocks.
    7
  40. It's interesting that you can name a bash function as ':'. Though, it'd make it too obvious what it's doing if you just named it 'a' or some such.
    7
  41. Rust won't prevent all errors and triggers errors on code that would otherwise work 100% perfectly fine. It's training wheels for newbies, but no one who wants the language to get out of the way so they can do real work should use it. If you write your code in a way similar to how Rust wants you to write your code then literally any language would work equally as "safely", except that most others will let you get on with the task of actually writing the code. If you have to integrate with anything closed source, and I know Rust hates closed source, but you introduce a possible security hole and if you're writing real code you're going to use someone else's libraries instead of implementing everything from scratch yourself. If you want to write code that's safe, using a library written in an older language, and which has been debugged for decades, will give you the best path to success. Also, from a purely aesthetic point of view, Rust is uglier than C++, and from a usability point of view it's far, far slower to compile which makes iterative design harder to do.
    7
  42.  @Heater-v1.0.0  I think you missed the obvious sarcasm in that line of "took over the world", because we all know it did not.
    6
  43.  @spaghettiking653  It could be as simple as an xor scheme, but no matter what method I use, it wouldn't be secure because the means to decode it would be in the binary. It's at best a first step.
    6
  44. Yeah, and his passive aggressive "hearts" on posts that tow the cult line is kind of shitty too.
    6
  45.  @herrpez  Clarify, not clarity. And it's not attitude, it's an attempt at humor that apparently no one gets. Whatever.
    6
  46.  @rockytom5889  I think it's definitely overused, but it can be useful when used effectively. Most C++ programmers do it wrong, but you can do OOP in any language and most C programmers who write OO code do it right.
    6
  47.  @oxycodin2253  C++ inherited C's standard library, so any vulnerabilities that exist in the library, such as the obvious ones like getc() and scanf() and all the rest are also in C++. As for the language sans library, the only vulnerabilities are introduced by the programmer and exist for C++ too.
    6
  48.  @grafspee9463  Sounds like I triggered another bad programmer. When a good programmer writes their code, they simply pair things. There's no huge investment of time in doing that. At the end everything works because you wrote it correctly and there are no leaks. The hitch of a GC might seem small on a desktop, but on an embedded device it's a killer. It can cause the device to freeze up permanently as things are being waited on and don't occur in a timely manner.
    6
  49.  @dinoscheidt  Anyone saying that it's not bloated today or wasn't originally is laughably wrong. It requires a VM to run and always has. Outside of a few niche cases you won't even be running it outside of a browser, and yeah, electron apps incorporate a browser.
    6
  50. @@bb-sky But it is telling it to continue, from the top of the loop. Though, I wouldn't be opposed to using next as the keyword to start the next iteration of a for loop, it wouldn't make sense in the context of a while or do/while loop, and in the interest of lowering the keyword count I'd delete the one that's the odd man out.
    6
  51. I find that it's best to combine this technique with reading the manuals for the processor you're learning about. ARM is a lot harder to look up because they've got so many variants, but there are still plenty of manuals. Learning x86 is significantly easier because the manuals are easier to find and many, many people have written about the subject, plus x86 is just better overall in many ways.
    5
  52. @ If he was serious, then I think we all know how it went. The real question is, where is he looking for a new job.
    5
  53.  @theninjascientist689  Invalid argument. Compare apples to apples. If you can write good C++, then you don't need Rust.
    5
  54.  @LaysLobs  You may be right because I leave a comment every time just to say something about it.
    5
  55. Next step, writing your own compiler. Would make for a fun video series. I'm writing one for my own language, and trust me, it is fun.
    5
  56. Personally, I see this as an absolute win. Why? Because it'll make corporations and any freedom loving individuals not want to use Rust. And that will diminish and eventually kill the language, or at the very least relegate it to third tier fringe status. The less this awful language gets used the better. Of course, those that are cultishly promoting the language won't give up, but then again they never do.
    5
  57. You can use C++ and never manually allocate or have "silly" errors that Rust claims they can stop. The fact is, Rust only stops one narrow point of failure, and not perfectly so, and all the Rustaceans seem to be under the mistaken impression that it stops all errors and perfectly. I'm sure someone will refute that impression or claim that the narrow line of errors it sometimes prevents are 70% of all errors, but they'll be lying if they do.
    5
  58. The majority of those older applications that were written in either C or C++ have been debugged to hell and back again. They work better than newer applications and have more features. So yeah, if memory corruption is discovered, it's usually in newer code, which can be written in any language, and is often the result of not understanding what you're doing with a given language or using an interface incorrectly. In other words, bad programmers write bad code in any language.
    5
  59. Yeah, if you're learning data structures then it is definitely easier to use a literal language like C or C++. Even Python would be a better choice and Python sucks.
    5
  60.  @akosdanielbollok  For starters, it uses a lot of the same garbage that C++ uses and they eliminated some of the garbage by eliminating features. The over-abbreviation of common words makes the language harder to read, although I'm sure someone will disagree because it's less letters even though that's not how our brains work. I still hate the Java-ization of programming languages where keywords apply to multiple constructs and have to be duplicated for each one, such as keywords specifically for exporting functions from modules. C++ actually does this partially right with regards to public/private/protected in classes and structs, but then didn't extend that brilliant idea to other arenas. Imagine just typing public: at the start of a module and all the functions are exported, or somewhere in the middle to keep internal functions hidden and export the interface only yet still with just one keyword, or being explicit and having a private: section.
    5
  61. That's a fair point. I usually use a dark gray background, except in vim where I use a navy blue background.
    5
  62.  @rockytom5889  Yep, even after all these years I still read man pages. Although, I don't have the best memory, so I kind of have to, but even for people who are less forgetful it's a good idea.
    5
  63. I should probably read that style guide because a lot of these things I already do in my own code. Two spaces for each indentation level and I've set my tab key to insert four. Plus, since vim has dedicated keys for it I can increase or decrease indentation levels with ease. Need to push right 3 levels, 3> and done. Anyone that thinks tabs are superior should read that guide.
    5
  64. This is one of those few things that Pascal actually did better than C. In fact I opted to copy that for my own language, := to assign, = to compare shallow, and == to compare deep. Well, copy and amend. As it turns out, I do assign variables at times in condition headers, and it would be quite annoying to give up that ability or make it a warning/error. The solutions that people come up with often make no sense. Like in Java, "gee, using goto is problematic if you don't know what you're doing", "we'll just delete it from the language and it'll be fine." Turns out that sometimes your code looks worse without it and is even more spaghetti-fied. The same could be said for Yoda notation which wouldn't catch if ( a = b ) errors, if it's not intentional.
    5
  65.  @DemoboyOot  I suppose it's one of those cases of "a rose by any other name". In x86 assembly, jmp is an unconditional branch, the same as a goto, and absent some algorithmic recognition and optimization by the compiler, a goto on x86 machines will translate to a jmp. Break and continue are much the same, but don't jump to a label, instead they jump out of or to the top of a loop, respectively. Of course, the underlying action taken by the code isn't necessarily the same as how it was intended to be expressed. To use goto to replace break and continue, you'd have to add a label and it would be less clear at a glance what the code was doing.
    5
  66. It disappearing would be positive.
    4
  67.  @torarinvik4920  Makes me wish the Digital Mars C++ compiler had a Linux version, because it had better error messages than every other compiler combined for STL errors. I don't guess it ever will at this point since Walter Bright is more focused on D development these days.
    4
  68.  @JMurph2015  Okay, then I'll amend my original statement by saying that use of such tools should be mandatory for big projects and the people using them should learn how to use them, as well as learn how to use more than just one tool.
    4
  69. @RandomNoob1124 They don't have to be, you can audit source, and believe me when I say it's easier than disassembling a binary to figure out what they're doing wrong.
    4
  70. The funny thing is that you can't use most of the standard library at that level without writing it yourself. With a language at the complexity of Rust, you have to write a lot to achieve the same functionality as you would have on a desktop computer. So for embedded platforms you won't have the majority of what presumably makes Rust even a good language. The only real question to ask ourselves is, what makes Rust with that basic level of functionality worth it then? It has an awful syntax, and adds some complexity to the build process over and above what C or assembly would. Unsafe code, which is required to manipulate memory references in this way eliminates a lot of memory safety. So if it does array bounds checking, which no one outside of first years should have a problem with, then that's it's only advantage.
    4
  71.  @ericbwertz  Indeed, BUFSIZ or whatever user defined macro/constant would be best.
    4
  72. I think the thing you should have gone over more is how encapsulating them in a class like this allows them to be deconstructed automatically when they go out of scope. I find that when I write C++ I tend to not allocate anything myself and instead I just allow the container classes to handle all of that for me. If I need a custom object I can write the allocation in the constructor and deallocation in the destructor and I'm done. Since the standard container classes call my destructors for me, I don't have to care about allocation most of the time. It's only when I write C that I have to care and I've got methods for dealing with it there, but it's never as easy when I have to create some new "class" to do things with. I don't hate the way I have my data structures library laid out, but I don't love it either and I constantly wish I had operator overloading and real classes like in C++. I don't totally hate C++ and its syntax, just most of it.
    4
  73.  @JaconSamsta  Since it ate my reply I'll say it again, there is no C/C++, it's C and C++ which are two separate languages. C++ syntax is crap, but Rust is worse. C has better syntax than either and if you're having problems with C declarations then you're writing code that is far too complex for your fragile mind to comprehend. All the languages you mentioned also have worse syntax than C, and sometimes C++. Pure idiocy is calling the simple syntax of C bad while admiring anything about Rust.
    4
  74.  @pwii  Indeed. You have to turn off optimizations to get it to work, and if you do, you have no need for the volatile keyword anyway.
    4
  75. It's a shame scanf() isn't written correctly. It requires far too much effort to use, better to use fgets() and to strtok() it yourself, maybe even intermingle some strspn(), strcspn(), strpbrk() and a little bit of strchr() with the occasional strstr(). Finally use strtol() and try in vain to remember how to use it then give up and look at the man page.
    4
  76.  @ゾカリクゾ  Apparently you and two others don't read books and/or have no sense of humor. Thanks for reaffirming my disdain for humanity in general.
    4
  77. Not so much based on bad language design, though Go is bad, but on bad programmers being too prevalent. GC isn't necessary if you're a good programmer and is generally a negative in every way.
    4
  78. I would add to what's already been recommended with reading the ISO standard for C, the erratas and the rationale, as well as read both the Intel and AMD optimization manuals as they do include some examples in C. But more importantly, I would also recommend learning assembly at the same time, but not in its entirety at first, rather the subset that your compiler of choice uses. I use gcc, so if you were to use the assembly generation flags to try and understand how it generates code, gcc -masm=intel -o foo.asm -S foo.c is the method you'll want to use. On top of all of that, I would recommend reading the source code for long used open source programs.
    4
  79. For everyone that has been cursed with writing anything in JavaScript, that is a very cold take, so cold that it almost reaches absolute zero. I would still change a few things in Lua, if I could, and the obvious first thing is 1-based array indices, and the second thing would be using -- for comments instead of #, and the third would be adding increment, decrement, and every single op= operator. And even given all those changes I would want to make not being made, it would still be a better language than what JavaScript currently is.
    4
  80. Modern idiomatic C++ involves not even using pointers unless they're wrapped in one of the *_ptr template types, and in general you should never need them since the container types do everything that most people need anyway. There's very, very little in modern C++ that requires you to even manually finagle a pointer. Likewise, you should never need to manually manage memory in modern C++, because again, the container types make up the difference. Given this, I find that most errors in programming come from people who don't bother to check user input. This is the single biggest source of errors and it seems like either no one knows how to do it, or no one cares to try. This is a universal constant that occurs even in Rust.
    4
  81.  @jamesyeoman794  I'd settle for just going back to what the law was in 1791, 14 years for copyright and after that it's PD.
    4
  82.  @1sthaloman  That's closer to the mark, but has other connotations that don't really meld with a single loop. It could very well mean restart the whole application, which might be a different kind of useful functionality.
    4
  83.  @BilboSwagginsTheThird  That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I just don't happen to agree at all, either that continue doesn't make grammatical sense, nor that skip would.
    4
  84. Static analyzers exist for both C and C++, have for decades, and free and open source programs for doing this work exist. Not using one for a critical application is a skill issue, especially since a person in that position knows that it's critical. These programs are far better at finding bugs in your code than Rust's compiler is.
    3
  85. But assembly is easier to understand and write programs in than Rust, it just has a larger vocabulary is all.
    3
  86.  @JMurph2015  Linting is not the only static analysis and Valgrind can do both runtime and compile time.
    3
  87. I've actually written a lot of OO code in C. Depending on how you write it, it can be horrific or reasonably pleasant. When I first wrote my data structures library I implemented it in a somewhat generic way with loads of function pointers and size fields and type ID's in nearly everything. It was really easy to work with, but it kind of looked fugly. At some point I implemented some standard types to use as templates, and it was huge. Not that it ran particularly slow or anything, or produced bloated binaries, but it was a lot to maintain. For the second version I just said "fuck it" and implemented raw data copies and had the user provide a void pointer and a size. Let them figure it out.
    3
  88. Since hundreds of libraries exist already for C it would've been even easier. Instead he's writing it from scratch in a language which treats him like a baby and loses most of its proclaimed advantages at that level.
    3
  89. In space you need realtime operations. You can't have that with a GC.
    3
  90.  @DissyFanart  That's just propaganda. Stop it.
    3
  91. I was with you until you said "better than C". It's basically a warped and twisted Ocaml, albeit with stunted growth, mixed with C++ and given a worse syntax than either.
    3
  92. What's your language going to look like? Also, how are you implementing the compiler?
    3
  93. In truth you don't need to manually manage memory the way Rustaceans claim. Use a data structures library and use a GC library as your allocator and you never have to manually deallocate. Write your code defensively and even manual memory management is error free. If you use C++, you should never manually allocate and thus never need to manually deallocate, so a GC isn't needed there nor is it wanted, and as a bonus, C++ has all kinds of handy automation and even smart pointers, if you need them.
    3
  94. I hope you read this, but it is a skill issue because we've had static analyzers of all varieties for use with C and C++ for decades. Not using one to validate your code if it's going to be in a critical, as in life or death, device, that's a skill issue. Something to consider is that there are millions of fresh graduates out there who have no clue what they're doing and often get tasked with writing code, whether it be on the job training or just as an exercise in testing their skills, and without any critical thinking and proper analysis of what they've written, that code gets used in products that ship. We've known how to write safe and secure code for decades, and yet people still write bad code because they are unskilled. Also, the 70% number you keep quoting was from a non-representative survey and should be ignored as a false data point. And in case you would like to point out that senior devs make mistakes and want to claim that the Rust compiler can somehow do what a more feature-filled decades old static analyzer can do, consider that maybe they shouldn't be called senior devs if they're not going to make use of the free and open source tools to properly check their C code, especially if they're writing code that is being incorporated into a kernel.
    3
  95.  @kaitlynethylia  That's just an excuse for racism. A country's predominate skin color has no relevance unless you're racist.
    3
  96.  @kaitlynethylia  First of all, the book is "Language and Ethnicity". Second of all, tripling down on racism and using a racist to back it up is ridiculous. What you and that racist meant to refer to was nationality, and even then, in a country such as the US, which isn't called a melting pot for nothing, is a tenuous relationship at best. The language that people use can vary from one region to another even within a city, let alone the entire country.
    3
  97.  @deang5622  Aside from there being more than one type of array, you didn't read my comment all the way to the end.
    3
  98.  @deang5622  Okay, you claim you read to the end yet still focus on the portion where I mentioned libraries ignoring the portion at the end where I mentioned the languages sans library. Do you know what sans means? Or are you contending that because this error is possible in nearly every language that it doesn't apply?
    3
  99.  @monad_tcp  That's okay, the compiler doesn't trust your code either.
    3
  100.  @obj_obj  Or you could use fg then ctrl-c.
    3
  101. I've got a 1080p monitor and I still appreciate the bigger fonts. Also, I wonder how hard it would be to recover the key if you used a backed up file. Might even be beneficial to keep a dummy file of the type they're looking for so you can use it to reverse the process for the key.
    3
  102.  @RAINE____  If it can't be logged physically or transmitted home, then it just gets dropped. Faster and safer that way for an embedded device that will be billions of miles away from maintenance.
    3
  103.  @mgord9518  Nice attempt at a troll. Of course you're forgetting those systems which come with a standard library built in and thus it adds no overhead. For instance, the PS1 had a good portion of the C standard library built into the BIOS.
    3
  104.  @mgord9518  A standard library embedded into the BIOS is most definitely going to be written in hand optimized assembly. And while there is overhead with calling functions, that overhead is consistent and predictable as well as capable of working in a single threaded environment. I know you think you're making a valid point, but at a certain point you have to balance productivity with functionality. With a GC, there is no such balance as it needs its own thread, which isn't always possible on embedded platforms, and it has an unpredictable runtime performance.
    3
  105. The language itself isn't actually very good, so it was always destined to be nothing more than a gimmick.
    3
  106.  @9SMTM6  In software? If you're on an x86 processor just use BCD. If you want access from C, I'm sure there are compiler intrinsics for them and if not, they'd be easy enough to implement.
    3
  107. Yeah, if you're going to pirate, easier to just patch the binary. Not that I'm advocating for piracy.
    3
  108. @@bb-sky Interesting perspective. But you'll have to come up with a better word than next or skip to convince me. I can't think of a word that's more apt than continue, only phrases.
    3
  109.  @BilboSwagginsTheThird  I was being sarcastic because I don't like either option. Millions of programmers have already learned `continue` and have no problem with the slight grammatical difference. Using a new keyword at this point in the game, you might as well wipe out all of the preexisting language design. Although, if you wrote up a grammar for that language, I'd love to know what it looked like.
    3
  110.  @MH_VOID  Ah, I thought you were quoting someone and I didn't get the quote. It's an interesting choice to be sure. I'll have to mull over `again` as a keyword.
    3
  111. Totally agree with that profile image.
    3
  112.  @txzk26  You can still do OOP with C, you just don't have the syntactic sugar inherent to the language to make it prettier.
    2
  113. Depends on what kind of hacking you mean. If you just want to write a game, learn both C and C++, but if you want to add features to games you don't have the source code for, or remove annoying features, then you should learn all three, C, C++ and assembly.
    2
  114.  @0x-003  Yeah, that doesn't answer the question. Do you mean writing the game, as the proper and traditional meaning of hacking would imply, or do you mean the modern and incorrect definition that stands in for cracking. If the latter, then yes, learn assembly, too. If the former, then don't bother because it's not necessary for that type of hacking.
    2
  115. Now set it up as a MUD server and connect it to the internet.
    2
  116.  @JaconSamsta  Why do people making these same braindead strawmen arguments. I don't use C because it prevents me from making mistakes that I would make if I were using assembly, because it doesn't prevent such things, I use C because it makes me more productive. If you're using a programming language because you expect it to fix your sloppily written code, then please get out of the industry before any code you write winds up in a medical device that kills someone. And if you can't be at least as productive, if not more so, in C than in Rust, then you're not a good programmer.
    2
  117.  @emeraldbonsai  I'd rather have fewer programmers than more code written by bad programmers.
    2
  118. Indentation is alignment. It's utterly stupid how many people don't seem to understand that, and that tabs being different per user is in fact a problem.
    2
  119.  @44r0n-9  Well, people could just be unlazy and say character in full, as that's what it's supposed to represent. Supposed because it doesn't actually, but that was the original intent.
    2
  120. And you can just write better code in C. Check user input and you literally eliminate all buffer overflows except those caused by logical errors. The sanitizers can pick up that slack easily.
    2
  121. @strehlow Why do you say that?
    2
  122. @RandomNoob1124 Do you enjoy putting your life in the hands of random people living very far away who hate you?
    2
  123.  @cherubin7th  What you meant to write is that with a stupid programmer you get all kinds of bugs that require someone else to save your butt. Good programmers only have bugs due to typos, which even C compilers will catch. Great programmers won't have those. Everyone else can use Rust.
    2
  124.  @0LoneTech  I've looked into Jai, and I'm not liking a lot of what I'm seeing there. I'd prefer to stick with either C or assembly at lower levels, but I still haven't found the perfect language at higher levels. Thus far C is the best I've found even with its limitations. Most of the syntactic sugar on other languages just gets in the way and the things which don't just aren't enough for me to switch. As for the compiler catching errors, gcc and clang are amazingly good at catching errors with more levels of fine grained control that you can annoy yourself to the extreme with them or turn them all off.
    2
  125.  @0LoneTech  If by reorienting you mean that it can consider a struct as an array of elements of various types, or that it could use an array where a typed struct is requested, then I'm not impressed. I've already got that in the language I'm writing. If there's some other meaning, then please elucidate.
    2
  126.  @0LoneTech  I'm not sure I get the point of that feature then. Instead of x[i].a you could reference it as x.a[i] or vice versa? Would it make it easier to reference one index into the array as a tuple? Say you have the second form, could you reference a and b at x[i] singularly? As for my own language, I haven't released it yet either, but I'm calling it Ocean.
    2
  127.  @0LoneTech  I guess I deal too much with lower levels of coding, because I don't have a problem with doing such tuning manually. I'll have to consider a strategy that'll work for others.
    2
  128. If you want cryptographic security, true. However, it can be used for testing and demonstration purposes as well as just for fun.
    2
  129. I doubt anyone will see this, but recursion is always unnecessary and should never be used. People keep bringing up tail recursion but not every algorithm can be written that way and if it can, it's just as easy to write and understand as simple iteration. If the iterative and recursive solutions are written correctly and they indeed yield the same result, the iterative solution will never crash due to any internal influences while it's possible that the recursive solution will, regardless of embedded system or desktop computer. This is because the stack is still limited in size even on desktops. If a developer can't translate a recursive algorithm into an iterative implementation, then they likely aren't very good anyway. One of the examples I keep seeing is for Fibonacci numbers, but I think the better example would be Quick Sort. If you've ever implemented one the correct way, you'll understand what I'm talking about, and even if you haven't, you might understand it should you read any C standard library implementation of it. You can have a simple solution that generally works, or a correct one, and you can have a complicated iterative implementation or a complex one. In the end, it's down to the programmer's skill.
    2
  130. Well, bash was written in C and somewhat influenced by it, but they are still significantly different.
    2
  131.  @felixst-gelais6722  Thanks for the compliment, but I'm not God.
    2
  132.  @justinwatson1510  Interesting thought, considering both yours and Deline's condescension while simultaneously being wrong.
    2
  133.  @AlFredo-sx2yy  At this point it almost seems like they're trying to start their own religion.
    2
  134.  @justinwatson1510  I'm not crying foul over your rudeness. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy of castigating me for doing that which you are accusing me of. And in this situation, it would be me who is humoring you.
    2
  135. It's an r-value reference.
    2
  136.  @abuk95  The &&var is an r-value reference. It's used for std::move() semantics so that it doesn't cause an unnecessary construction or allocation.
    2
  137.  @hottoniapalustris1541  That's complete bovine excrement and if you were wiser you'd know it.
    2
  138.  @LogicEu  Yeah, but you should really use a custom PRNG if you want that kind of consistency, which I believe MineCraft does.
    2
  139. I think it was when I first learned about r-value references that I really started to hate C++. I was rather indifferent to it before that, but that, that is what made me hate it.
    2
  140. I thought you were going to say something about shielding from cosmic rays. Imagine having your code fail because of radiation.
    2
  141.  @youtubelisk  Skill issues are mitigated, if not eradicated, with education and practice. Your incorrect definition of the term proves that the issue you're having is IQ, which goes deeper than skill. You can't help it, you were born with that brain.
    2
  142. Well, the government won't let it fail, even though it should fail based on merit. Consider that the FDIC insures 250k, which most normal people won't have even that much, and you'll understand why it would be better for the world and society at large for it to collapse.
    2
  143. I haven't played that game in a long time, though my version was for the Genesis. I would definitely like to see you do a series on making a game for an old system like the NES or SNES. Even though I was a Genesis kid I think the 6502 would be a lot easier to program for than the m68k.
    2
  144.  @C4CH3S  You don't need to remake the PCB, and it doesn't need to look exactly the same as an official terminal. Just to duplicate its functionality to attempt network intrusion. Only people that need it to look the same are spies and they have the resources to make that happen because they're state sponsored.
    2
  145.  @wrockd  You missed a whole bunch of points and made a pointless long-winded response, but you also answered your own question. The majority of developers these days are dinguses. That's why we have languages like Python, Java, C#, Go and now Rust.
    2
  146. Actually, I thought about it some more and realized that you still have the same problem. Since their ordering is enforced it will always tell you the same direction. Let's say struct { int x; int y; }; x will always be at a lower address than y, no matter which direction the stack grows.
    2
  147.  @kaitlynethylia  Wow, and doubling down on the racism. The gall of people like you. This is the same kind of argument that leads to calling people of particular ethnicities inferior to others. Linguistics have nothing to do with ethnicity.
    2
  148. This is one of the problems with optimizations. It can alter the functionality of your code if you're not careful, and why I always test with both.
    2
  149.  @TheCustomFHD  Depends on how you're reading it in. From the command line it'll generally be safe, but if someone used exec*() to start your program then you can't really trust the command line entirely, that's another paragraph if you're curious. If you read user input directly, fgets() is generally a good and safe method then use all the str*() parsing functions or sscanf(), just remember that if the line is super long it won't have a \n at the end of the buffer, and you could always use fgetc() and read a character at a time and buffer it yourself. A resizable buffer is a good idea then, but maybe restrict the user to 32k for your sanity. Reading characters instantly is a whole other ball of wax and you could use ncurses or some platform specific API.
    2
  150.  @afelias  Heh, good ol' Bobby Tables.
    2
  151.  @HrHaakon  So check user input then wrap it up, potentially in another allocation, just to indicate that you've checked it? No, you should only be taking user input at a few known points in your program, if more than one, and thus should only need to check it in that/those location(s). Don't add unnecessary complexity.
    2
  152.  @ccgarciab  Or maybe he wrote the library functions he uses to handle things 20 years ago and doesn't need to do anything manually anymore. I would argue that Rust's syntax is garbage and I'd rather use C++, and I hate C++.
    2
  153. I recommend learning either nasm or fasm as they're far easier to use and understand than GNU `as`. They also implement a much better syntax.
    2
  154.  @yjlom  That's GNU style. I personally use Allman style, but I find that I'm nearly alone in that. Most these days use K&R, even people writing code in Go and Rust. Go actually enforces it too, as in it's an error to not use K&R. I actually hate K&R style which is why I hate Go with a fiery passion.
    2
  155. And again I'll say it. If you design a programming language based on what bad programmers do and are actively trying to stop them from doing it, you'll affect good programmers who use the same construct the correct way. Stop trying to prevent bad programmers from screwing up by making the programming language a pain to use.
    2
  156. I suppose that depends on whether you're writing an IOCCC entry or not.
    2
  157.  @not_ever  You could use strtok() since before standardization because it's a carry over from C. Since they added iostreams, before Rust was even a swimmer in its daddy's balls, you could use it slightly more effectively than the *scanf() functions. However, it's ridiculous for @vintagewader to call it a joke that the language took so long to add functions that any halfway decent programmer could and had written themself. Of course, if @vintagewander were being honest they'd not shittalk C++ when it has better syntax than Rust. This coming from someone that has hated the language for over 20 years until Rust made me love C++. Oh, and one final note, anyone that doesn't already know, Boost is probably the reason why it's taken so long to standardize these features because it already provided the majority of them and since it's open source and cross platform, the language never really needed to add them anyway.
    2
  158.  @_colonial_  Odd, because C++ projects take an infinitely shorter period of time to compile for me even when you compare the speed of compilation for C++ on my Raspberry Pi to the speed of Rust on my desktop. And you're basically admitting that Rust is for awful programmers. Not a point in favor of its existence.
    2
  159.  @_colonial_  Ah, never mind, apparently I did respond previously, but YouTube shadowed my previous response and the latest as well. I wouldn't have noticed if I hadn't double checked the latest notification which only showed two responses still. I'm going to guess that this will be shadowed as well and you didn't see either of the other responses I made to you and you won't see this one. Of course, I have to keep trying to get through to Rustaceans and continually counter their lies because the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
    2
  160. The UK hasn't been a free country ever, but what little freedoms they used to have have practically been eroded to zero in the past 30 years.
    2
  161. Simple and easy to understand. I wish this had existed 25-ish years ago when I first learned about pointers. Would have made it so much easier to understand. I'm glad I stuck with it though, because now it's fun to write functions to do single allocations for 2d and 3d pointers and set it up for the user of that function. Well, if anyone actually uses it, but it was fun writing and debugging anyhow.
    2
  162. Personally, I don't have much hope for future generations to understand the lower level concepts. I hope they prove me wrong and keep the knowledge of how to do all of this alive.
    2
  163. Just two? If I could post a link I'd show you some videos that would increase that count.
    2
  164. In this instance, while I love C and I still think it's the best language, C++ actually provides a more elegant solution whereby the cleanup code goes into the destructor for a class so that if any part fails you could simply return from the function and the appropriate cleanup would occur. Even though I borderline hate Zig for the syntax choices they've made, I'll admit that defer is also a rather nice option and slightly more flexible.
    2
  165. I still remember reading the AMD optimization manual like 20-ish years ago and figuring out how to use that to your advantage in so many ways. Even when you have simple string constants you can still take advantage of it by pre-hashing the strings, and there was another trick in there involving multiple if branches that could be compressed into a single switch by using the compiler's own optimizations to convert a test into a simple bit and then bitwise or them all together.
    2
  166.  @mgord9518  I don't know if you're serious or still trolling. The BIOS is no slower for having a standard library embedded with it than without. Code that you don't execute doesn't take processing cycles, and a standard library in the BIOS will be faster than one you write yourself as long as they optimize it, which they very likely did.
    2
  167. While the people controlling Go are arguably better overall, the language itself is even worse. Try learning plain ol' C.
    2
  168. C doesn't have virtual functions, you're thinking of C++.
    2
  169.  @JaykPuten  I'd use either ABS or HDPE. I had some plastic things in a space with wide temperature swings and a lot of direct sunlight that somehow survived 20 years of that abuse which were made out of those two plastics. Everything else became brittle and crumbled in my hands.
    2
  170.  @JaykPuten  Hard to print, but really sturdy and long lasting. If it can survive 20 years in a Texas attic, it's not half bad. Just my $0.02.
    2
  171. I would make the argument that you should never learn Rust. Instead, learn C, then halfway through learning it, learn assembly. After learning as much of both as you can for say 2 or 3 years, then learn C++. Eventually, after say a decade, design and implement your own language. That would easily take another decade for most people, more so if you're genuinely serious about the project.
    2
  172. The biggest problem with tabs is that different people "require" different sizes for their tabs. Indentation is alignment and changing alignment causes problems. I don't buy the accessibility argument, especially since every editor can generate visual cues to indicate whitespace, but that you said "easily understand" makes me think it's not even a valid accessibility issue at all, but rather a laziness of reading issue. Although, truthfully if someone can't understand the code when they read it, I wouldn't want them on any team that I manage because they'd be a hindrance to development.
    2
  173. If your determinant of what makes a good program or not is whether it uses goto or not, then you probably have some ugly code that performs poorly. Use the right tool for the job and stop making the world a worse place by perpetuating extreme ideology that leads to garbage code. If you have to use a goto, then do it, don't try to program around it by writing convoluted code that's hard to grok and thus harder to debug, and don't use inexperienced programmers as an excuse for why you write bad code.
    2
  174.  @toddmartin7030  It doesn't matter where the standard library comes from, it's still C. By the way, most of both Linux and FreeBSD were written in C and if the standard library is implemented by the OS it's even lighter than to tack it on after the fact.
    2
  175. This is really only valid for a tiny subset of cases, and leaves off an explanation of different calling conventions and architectures which have different return patterns. On top of that oversimplification your implementation of strlen() is actually wrong. Forget best practices, at the very least return a correct result and use the correct function signature: size_t strlen ( const char *s ) { const char *t = s; while ( *t ) t++; return t - s; }
    2
  176.  @CD4017BE  Yeah, labelled continue and break, with try/continue/finally to fill in most of the rest of the gaps. Thing is, exceptions are slower than return value checking. What we need is a new idiom for a lot of things that are done the Java way, or for that matter the C++ way. Reasonable programmers do these things, but they're still inferior to how we should be doing things. And goto was just an example as there are other things that other languages remove as features because they deem them to be bad when they aren't.
    2
  177.  @rumfordc  This is true, but no one should be able to trademark a standard English word in a sane world. However, it has been established that we don't live in a sane world.
    2
  178. There's an easier non-recursive method. Use an inner block. `bool does_it_grow_up ( void ) { int x; { int y; if ( &y > &x ) return true; } return false; }` // but I can't wait until more compilers support C23 and we can all stop using `#include <stdbool.h>`.
    2
  179. True, but it'll really boggle you when you try to use _Generic and it matches every array passed to it as a pointer to the given type instead of an array of any dimension. It's just super annoying because it kind of reduces the utility of the functionality. I can't seem to determine if it's a bug in gcc or if that's accurate to the standard, but I don't like it either way.
    2
  180.  @АнтонГусев-н5ю  You may have an incorrect definition of the word "can". In fact, an unknowledgeable programmer can still write bad code in any language, even Rust. What's more, those big projects have more than one developer, and the one introducing the bug may not be the maintainer and even in circumstances where they are they may be having a bad day. C makes it more of a concerted effort to write good code, but neither it nor Rust will force you to, regardless of any procedures you undertake. And there are static analyzers that can be used on projects written in C that will achieve everything the Rust compiler does and then some. Don't be lured in by the lies of the Rust developers, you can still very much write bad code in it, and code that has many errors. You can still write good code in C, just that no one is going to hold your hand.
    2
  181. Without modifying the language itself, as in the compiler and its code generator, you can't make it any more portable. Granted the same is true of both C and C++, their longer lifespan means that for the vast majority of platforms that someone else has already done that work for you. While you can use Rust offline, and there is a flag to do so, it's next to useless if you've already downloaded some source code that you need to compile and can't satisfy its dependencies which you only learn about after you've unplugged. In case you ask, the command line switch to use with `cargo` is `--offline` and it won't download any dependencies from the internet.
    2
  182.  @MH_VOID  The problem is that skip can easily mean hop out of the loop right now, whereas continue means keep the loop going. Shorter isn't always better.
    2
  183.  @heckerhecker8246  Then you need to reread it, but slower. Clearly you haven't finished learning English if you still can't understand it.
    2
  184. Government has stack overflow errors, wants people to use language that claims to prevent them. It's certainly ironic.
    2
  185.  @michawisniewski4654  In 99% of cases it's #2. If he shows off the vulnerability on Monday, he'll be looking for a new job on Monday.
    1
  186. I hardly ever update my OS or most of the software I use and yet somehow I'm using a newer version of vim than you. As for the DE or WM, I just use KDE and I've got shortcuts set up to push windows into a tiled position. Since I've been using tabs with vim I'll generally just use it either full or half screen and what other windows I have open will either be the only other window on that desktop so alt+tab isn't a big stretch or it'll be the other half of the screen. For reading PDF's, if you've got it installed I'd actually recommend okular as it's far superior to the built-in reader for FireFox and easier to tile as well.
    1
  187. Capitalism requires competition. Government contracts that are exclusive based on bribing congresscritters is not how competition works. Monopolies are anti-capitalistic and the government is the biggest legal monopoly.
    1
  188. Two's complement was a great idea. It may lead to weird representations, but it makes processing so much easier. I wonder if any computers are being manufactured to this day that use one's complement.
    1
  189. Food for thought: not converting from network byte order might add a couple of seconds to the time it takes a hacker to crack their "code".
    1
  190. Wouldn't it be better to say "be executed"? It would make for an appropriate double meaning as well.
    1
  191. I'm in a gang of one and "we" only use Allman style.
    1
  192.  @AkaiKnight  There's definitely a tone in text, but it is also definitely harder to spot. Italic and bold text certainly help, but sometimes it's obviously false statements that are the easiest to get, especially when they're chained together.
    1
  193.  @johnterpack3940  When you're good, your screwups tend to be minor such as a typo. When you're average or below, you make logical errors that often aren't detected, even by the compiler, until after it's cost a company millions of dollars or a patient their life. If you need a programming language to make you good, then you're bad, and in such instances, it'd be better for everyone if you quit and found another job.
    1
  194.  @johnterpack3940  Except that Rust doesn't prevent you from doing something you shouldn't be doing, and what it prevents you from doing isn't wrong in all circumstances, and that's even disregarding the false positives. The biggest problem with the arguments in favor of Rust is that they're propaganda. If a language is going to take an ideological design approach and prevent you from doing things that the designers deem to be bad, they better make damn sure that those things are universally bad as opposed to sometimes bad.
    1
  195.  @johnterpack3940  And you don't see the fallacy in the logic. The very existence of unsafe makes the propaganda null and void. And the existence of Arc, Rc, Box and all the other cruft makes it more annoying to use even when you're doing the right thing. There is no winning with Rust, it's an uglier C++ with less utility.
    1
  196. Region locking is the only reason I can think of to use a VPN. Any other reasons amount to you not trusting your ISP, which is plausible for some use cases, but unless you've been targeted in the past I wouldn't worry too much. Personally, I think region locking should be illegal, and truthfully it's stupid for companies to do it since it cuts off potential revenue. Hopefully in the future they'll gain some intelligence and stop doing it.
    1
  197.  @donperegrine922  Are you really that dumb that you think they use the same processors that go into our desktop computers? Oh, you are. Maybe you'll learn one of these days how they have to do things for spacecraft because cosmic radiation can literally flip bits causing data corruption at random intervals.
    1
  198. The really crazy thing here is that they were able to attack v8 from JavaScript itself. I'll say it again, HTML/CSS/JavaScript should all three be replaced, and this only further confirms my bias against that awful trio of technologies.
    1
  199. So McDonald's India knew how shit their security was that they put up a bug bounty. Whereas in the US McDonald's is so arrogant as to believe they don't need better security. It's honestly kind of sad for the company no matter which country we're talking about. Also doesn't help that the bug bounty amount is so pathetically low even for India.
    1
  200. I would argue that you should learn every language you can. Start simple, yes, C and assembly are both good choices, but keep learning as many as you can. However, that doesn't mean that they're all equally usable or good or that you should continue using them just because you know them. Only keep up so you can write code in them if called on to do it, but stick with C as your "daily driver". And char is short for character, so you shouldn't pronounce it like the word char even though they're spelled the same, like read and read.
    1
  201.  @ChapmanWorldOnTube  The problem with that solution is that you then must unpack the variables from the struct. Whether they're passed on the stack, and thus take up valuable stack space, or passed by address while contained in a struct, it either requires extra space to be used up or extra syntax to be had. Both solutions are less easily understood at a glance, more difficult to type in, and potentially fraught with extra bugs, on top of requiring extra copying of values which in a long-running loop will add up. Now, if the compiler optimizes said functions because you label them static and use -O3, you still have harder to grok code with more potential for bugs.
    1
  202.  @ChapmanWorldOnTube  Did you mean Wirth? Surely not, because Pascal and Oberon both have such similar syntax to and design sensibility with C. Otherwise I have no idea what "Writhian" means.
    1
  203.  @ChapmanWorldOnTube  Well, for one, C doesn't have closures, but define begin as { and end as } and you're already halfway to Pascal. I wouldn't call that a particularly distinct syntax just that Wirth opted for key words instead of key characters. If you want to compare Object Pascal / Delphi to C++, then I'll agree with a designation of wildly different syntax.
    1
  204.  @gregorymorse8423  Okay, write a compiler and optimize for that no matter how many levels deep the loops are nested and how far apart these test conditions are accounted for.
    1
  205.  @gregorymorse8423  Okay, do it. Write your compiler and let's test how efficiently it generates code.
    1
  206. In strict terms, no one path is necessary as you can rework the code to your heart's content and make it amazingly convoluted and difficult to debug just by being an ideological drone that spouts nonsense like "goto is evil". That doesn't mean it's the best decision, and possibly not even a correct one, but you can do that if you like to leave the world a worse place than you entered it just for ideology. Or, and I'm just throwing this out there, you can use goto in places where it not only streamlines the code but improves the clarity of it and try to teach those that follow you the correct usage of the construct instead of telling them to use a worse solution.
    1
  207.  @ChapmanWorldOnTube  No, it's an ideology because all the arguments against using goto are invalid. Essentially it all boils down to saying you don't like the way a certain method of flow control looks and thus you hate on it and generally anyone who uses it. If you use any imperative programming language then hating goto is nonsensical. The only way to escape having the look and feel of goto is to use a declarative language, and even then it's still only thinly veiled due to the way a computer operates.
    1
  208.  @ChapmanWorldOnTube  And therein lies your problem. It's not a strawman, nor is it incorrect to synonymize readable and understandable. If you're organizing your code around a rats nest of gotos, then it's far more likely that your code is unreadable. However, I'm not saying and have never said that it's between using all gotos and no gotos, and quite frankly that's a strawman argument on your part to even suggest that. (We'll add sea lioning or motte and bailey if you want to argue you didn't mean what you meant.) You use the right tool for the job to get it done, and if you make it unreadable, then you've not done the job correctly. Oftentimes people will rearrange their code so that they can avoid using even a single goto when the rearranged code is less efficient and still harder to read. That's a waste of both the developer's time and the user's time. No amount of studies done on bad programmers misusing a useful feature will ever be a valid argument against that feature existing. It's the same as arguments where people want to remove someone's rights merely because an evildoer abuses their freedom and don't dare tell me it's for safety, because that's a canard.
    1
  209.  @ChapmanWorldOnTube  Right, so goto is bad, using a different word to achieve the exact same functionality isn't really goto and is therefore not bad. Maybe 80 years ago programmers weren't capable of graphing the structure of their code, but we certainly can now, and I'll say it again because it hasn't seemed to have sunk in, but you can't goto the middle of one function from another, only internal to the function that has the label you're going to. And if you have to add extra variables to enable complex breaking methodologies, then you're making the code harder to read and/or understand, whichever definition you wish to use. Are we really still arguing over the use of a keyword that merely goes by another name in other languages even though it functions exactly the same? At this point, I can't help but feel that you're confusing semantics with keywords and don't understand why that's an incorrect conflation.
    1
  210.  @ChapmanWorldOnTube  So you are confusing semantics then. Okay, got it. Yeah, you'll never understand my point of view because of your dogmatic view of this subject. That's okay, not every developer is capable of understanding how the programs and programming language they use actually work nor can they understand how the high level abstractions both hurt and aid program design nor what they actually equate to. I do wonder if Dijkstra would've changed his tune had he lived to see some of the more horrific higher level abstractions that have been designed over the past 20 years and how absolutely awful software has gotten as a result of programmers understanding less of how things work.
    1
  211. BitCoin is crypto, and if you think the banking collapse is due in any part to crypto then you haven't been paying attention.
    1
  212.  @freeasinbeer  Because each indentation level will change the alignment. It might be fine for tables, but all other forms will skew.
    1
  213.  @freeasinbeer  If you're stacking spaces onto tabs, you're still doing it wrong. If you're not wrapping long lines you're doing it wrong and that's one of the points where you get into trouble using tabs. Not only should you not be using tabs, but you especially shouldn't be mixing them.
    1
  214. I really wish people would stop pronouncing abbreviations in a manner inconsistent with the word of which they're an abbreviation. For instance, "strcpy()" is not "stir copy" but rather "string copy". It's like when people pronounce "char" as though you're going to flame-broil some meat. It should be "care" as it is an abbreviation for character.
    1
  215. I think that as it gets better at coding it'll replace a lot of mediocre and already incompetent programmers. After all, it can't be any worse than what Microsoft puts out, no offense to Dave Plummer. There are literally millions of programmers out there and less than half are any good at actually writing code. There are also a lot of scientists who pretend to be programmers on occasion. So yeah, it'll eventually get there and replace the majority of current "programmers", but we're still a few years, possibly decades, away from it replacing actually competent programmers. Of course, if it gets there within our lifetimes, we can say goodbye to humanity.
    1
  216. I should just write everything myself. Far too much software violates basic principles of good code. For starters, signed bytes, and really by default using signed integers at all, that's a big no no. While I don't ascribe to the rigidity of most who tout DRY, I do feel like rewriting memcpy but doing it incorrectly is a bad move. If you're going to write a loop like that, and why would you, at least check the length somewhere before you start modifying it. But in all honesty, you get faster code to use an index into the arrays instead of modifying two pointers and a length variable.
    1
  217.  @paulfloyd9258  You're right. Somehow I was confusing my tools because I set up the autocmd's so long ago I forgot which I used for which. I apologize to anyone I confused with my comments and I think I might need to get tested for Alzheimer's.
    1
  218. @strehlow I'm assuming that was directed at me to attempt answering my question, and the answer is no, I have not seen them being anti-consumer or working solely for the interests of billionaires. I have witnessed many on the left doing such things, especially censoring dissenting voices and in general making user experience worse, which is most definitely anti-consumer. Take for instance your own post. They deleted the user name you were directing your post at. Whether it's intentional or through negligence really doesn't matter, the outcome is the same, it makes the user experience worse, which if in no one else will at least be sure to sow discord in you.
    1
  219. It's not wrong to use a statically sized buffer, but it is wrong to not know what the size of that buffer actually is. Sure, over time things could grow to where that buffer is insufficient, but `#define alen(a) (sizeof(a)/sizeof(*a))` is so simple to write and include inside a standard header for your projects that it's ridiculous that someone would not do so and use it. I consider such CVE's to be skill issues. C does almost nothing for you, but such a check is easily optimized by the compiler if you actually do one yourself. Always check user input.
    1
  220.  @FiveFingerTight  If they don't support one right, they probably don't support a whole host of others. Of course it's quite clear that they don't support the right to free speech or self defense, so it's just a stones throw from not supporting any.
    1
  221.  @Digidan5  You clearly haven't met the rabid cultists who would attack you for wrongthink if you dared have a difference of opinion. For those such people you would need a firearm to protect yourself.
    1
  222. Personally, I'd advise no one to ever learn Rust. C runs on far more platforms, is significantly less bloated, and if you learn it well you can parlay those skills into other languages. However, you shouldn't just learn the syntax of C, but its standard library and all of the modern features that it provides, such as _Generic. The fact that the feature has been around for as long as it has and so many people still don't know of its existence is rather sad. If you learn C that well, then I'd suggest learning C++. If you learn C++ you'll have a much easier time doing just about anything and anywhere. If you're interested in game development, then definitely that path is the better option, but also if you want to get deep into the weeds and learn how to be a better game programmer, then learn about 3D math while you're at it and maybe even learn some assembly. I can't imagine that many, if any, people wanting to get into programming would deliberately intend to get into low level programming, writing drivers and so on, but if anyone does decide they want to do that, I would learn C and assembly in tandem and read the processor manuals from Intel, AMD and ARM. Both Intel and AMD have optimization manuals and they're definitively a must read even if you don't want to do assembly at all.
    1
  223. I'll say it again since my comment apparently got filtered, but you can 100% bet that it's incompetence on the part of their programmers, not maliciousness. You can tell because it was so easily discovered. If they were malicious it would've been somewhat hidden so that they could take advantage of it, by selling the information for how to violate security to third parties, potentially foreign governments.
    1
  224.  @genericdeveloper3966  I am, because anyone that works with me can easily read and understand my code and don't have to worry about bugs.
    1
  225. The thing I'd like to know is why is my CPU temperature is in Celsius. Instead of using bc and adding a dependency I wrote a converter entirely in bash. Luckily bash does provide division so I just multiplied by 100 to simulate two digits past the decimal point and said good enough.
    1
  226. What distro are you on that your Python and GCC are less up to date than mine? I haven't updated for 2 years and I'm still more up to date. Also, why did you write it in Python instead of just using C, especially when you could've just copied the code straight from Ghidra?
    1
  227. But what was the point you were trying to prove? For that matter, where are these streams you keep talking about?
    1
  228. You won't read this, but I'll tell you that you're right anyway. When I'm working on the computer I'm in a dark room with drawn curtains. When I'm not at the computer I like doing various things like woodworking and such. When I moved recently I found all of my old Lego and at some point I'd like to clean them all and maybe set aside a bit of desk space to play with those again. I built a lot of spaceships when I was a kid, even with kits that weren't even remotely related to space and one day I'll build a full-size spaceship, but that may need to wait until society fully collapses before I can make a start on it, so it'll be within the decade.
    1
  229. Interesting viewpoint, but big O notation doesn't tell the whole story because something can have an O(1) complexity yet run slower than something that's O(N). Second of all, while compilers have gotten really good at optimizing, there will be cases where refactoring to use a switch will improve the code that the compiler generates. A single jump in the case of a switch as opposed to a whole slew of them in an if/else chain will be demonstrably better and it shouldn't even require testing.
    1
  230.  @niirvashtzero  That's true of a lot of things, though at -O0 a switch will always generate better, faster code. At -O3 it won't matter for most uses, but there are times when a bunch of if/else blocks won't be optimized as well by the compiler and it's better to get ahead of it, aside from the fact that it will be easier to read as a switch.
    1
  231.  @Vaaaaadim  Except that this is part of the optimization process, both in terms of performance and making your code easier to read and thus update.
    1
  232. Yep, completely agreed with this stance. In fact I don't buy any game if it's noted anywhere that it has rootkits or other DRM built-in. I'd love to see every game become open source, but they claim it's harder, if not impossible, for them to detect cheating only server-side. I don't agree, but it is certainly complex and hard to get right.
    1
  233. I think I may skip ahead in my subs feed and just watch all of these videos. I tried day 2 and got both parts relatively easily, so why not. I do kind of wonder if this is setting up to write a compiler for some language named snow, because all of these are basic parsing "challenges" so far.
    1
  234. I'm assuming the pornographic drawings were intentional, a one-ball wang plus the uterus and ovaries, but either way funny. No matter how old I get I'm still immature. I like using static libraries more these days because it avoids version conflict garbage. Put the entirety of the library in an `ar` archive and describe the interface in a header and never worry about it. Even cooler still is that you could put the object files and source files together for some extra fun. More people should know how to use `ar`.
    1
  235. Obviously the answer is to just use GMP. Precise to the last bit of your RAM, if need be, and more if you have virtual/swap space.
    1
  236.  @hehehehe_hah  C++ isn't a superset of C, at least not anymore. While it may be easier to use than Rust and with a better syntax, it won't replace C either and isn't intended for the same spaces where C is still used. Although, if they keep adding to it the committee may kill it. I'd be fine with that if we had a decent successor in its space, but where C++ shines nothing else is as good. Not that that will stop people from espousing support for their favorite trend language.
    1
  237. Newer variables getting lower addresses is the stack growing down, not up. As for the parameter method of testing, the order in which they're passed to the function is actually unspecified, and whether they're even on the stack as well. On Linux they would be in registers and the compiler would have to generate code to copy them to the stack and it could do so in any order as well.
    1
  238.  @d3line  So basically, Rust is safer than C at this low level because??? It prevents you from dereferencing null pointers? If you write code properly that won't be a problem. 10 times out of 10, dereferencing a null pointer is programmer error. The same is true for using something after you've freed it. And at this low level, type mismatches won't occur because you're not dealing with complex types. So type checking in macros is just pointless abstraction and convolution here. Bounds checking isn't a real concern if you're not a dingus and just don't have any off by one errors and of course check user input. If that bounds checking isn't done at runtime it won't be of real benefit anyway and if it is it'll slow your program down which on a 200mhz processor is a bad thing. If you think any of what Rust provides is both real and of benefit then you must not be a very good programmer in the first place. Tell me which programs you've contributed to so that I may excise them from my system if I'm unfortunate enough to have them?
    1
  239.  @d3line  Nearly all programmers are bad programmers, this is a known fact. So instead of making it easier for them to be programmers and make far worse mistakes than common ones, let's instead shut them out. Linux has bugs because it has thousands of developers who probably shouldn't be allowed to contribute code to it. How many of those bugs are for the common core of Linux as opposed to drivers for hardware that not everyone uses? Do you know? Do you even understand the difference? A Raspberry Pi may not have the limitations of an Arduino or some other niche piece of hardware, but you still shouldn't be cavalier with resources. There are many applications where you need smaller hardware and using Java isn't an option, but what's more is like Rust, many of the features are unimplemented on such hardware and all you get is the syntax. Proving code correctness is impossible for a program to do, at best you can prove partial correctness, which is not good enough. If bounds checking is only done at compile time, then when your improperly written code encounters an out of bounds condition at runtime the check will have proven worthless. So it's slowing down the compile time for little potential benefit to prevent errors which don't happen with good programmers and no benefit for the runtime portion. So it won't slow down the running code, sure, but it won't catch the more pernicious errors. In fact, Rust won't catch the majority of the more pernicious errors which mostly occur because idiots slip through the cracks by learning languages like Java, Python, Go, C# and yes Rust. As for what Microsoft thinks, I don't care, I don't use Windows and won't and they can suck a big D.
    1
  240.  @d3line  Let's see, false equivalency, as flying airplanes is not the same as writing code. As well errors made there are more immediate unless you're using bad code. Oh wait, that's happened and they had to ground a huge swath of planes which had slow building problems because of poorly written code. For kernel vulnerabilities, do you have any idea how to trigger any of those? How long did it take to find them? On the RPi you just made another argument for me because a dingus like most new developers are these days won't understand algorithmic complexity and won't have any clue how to actually implement them. So good luck getting one of them to write good code for embedded systems and if they don't learn it early, good luck getting them in later years to do it as well. You mistakenly assumed I was talking about hardware features when I was talking about software features, as in what the language provides, or in this case fails to. And the point still stands that at that level, Rust and C are on equal footing except for a few points which as I said only apply to bad programmers. Bounds checking can be as simple as "you're using `i` to index the array and checking at the top against a.len()", but if you have a mutating index, as in based on data that may be external to not just the module you're writing but your entire program, it would have to either do runtime bounds checking for each access or none at all. For work on embedded systems you'll encounter that a lot. Airbags actually do cause more harm than good, so that's an invalid point right there. Microsoft still can't write a good OS, but you trust their expertise on writing good code? Talking to beginners is, hopefully, how I influence the world to be better. If I can dissuade ones like you from writing code the world is that much better, and if I can teach better ones than you to write better code by them learning better techniques, better still.
    1
  241.  @d3line  I've stopped caring enough to read your whole post, so I'll just read the last paragraph and address that. I'm anonymous, I don't provide proof because it would deanonymize me. I don't entirely mind people becoming programmers, if they're taught the right things. If I convince no one to get on the right path, then too bad for all of you. Bad code can kill especially in embedded settings such as airplane firmware or medical equipment. Duck that if you don't believe it because there's plenty of proof on that. I don't even care if his videos reach billions, as long as he doesn't promote Rust. I used to believe in humanity, but people like you have really disappointed me. The more D-bags like you that I encounter the less sad I'm becoming at the thought of humanity dying out. Keep contributing to that, please.
    1
  242.  @d3line  Unimportant until a bad programmer kills someone with their bad code written for a piece of medical equipment. Or downs an entire fleet of airplanes which already resulted in hundreds of people dying. You would undoubtedly blame the language for these problems, and you'll undoubtedly claim that your language of choice would've prevented them, but you're wrong. That absolves the programmer of blame for being negligent, not merely not knowing enough, but not caring enough to check their code, and the error in question wouldn't have been prevented by any language's compiler.
    1
  243.  @d3line  In the case of your radiation example, no, Rust would not have prevented those errors. Blame is important in this instance to address where the failure occurred and to correct it for the future. And Rust also, still, would not have prevented what happened in the case of the 737. What's even more important yet, is to not teach children that they can do whatever they want and still be safe, that's how we have Darwin awards. Teach children when they're doing something wrong and how to do it right and you'll get better outcomes.
    1
  244.  @AlFredo-sx2yy  True, and I would add that they fail to understand that logical errors that can lead to very bad code can be written in any language.
    1
  245.  @d3line  You can still have race conditions in Rust. One, by using a library which modifies your variables or which you access the variables of. Two, at the low level they were writing the code for the PDP, if it had been written in Rust it would've required the use of "unsafe" and would not have prevented the error anyway. Did you not look up the 737 or the accidents that occurred? It was due to the auto-pilot software adjusting for a perception of what was happening based on a faulty sensor reading. A logical error that no language would've solved, but a good programmer would not have allowed. Figures that you'd find the Rust compiler aggravating. Do you know how to code?
    1
  246.  @AlFredo-sx2yy  Kind of seems like they think time travel is possible with it too.
    1
  247.  @d3line  Libraries most definitely are excepted. You can't know what a library is doing unless you've compiled the source yourself, and if it's closed source, you sure as heck can't do that. It could modify your data in an unexpected way that you must account for, and which must be manually handled in any language as even Rust won't handle it for you. Are you agreeing with my point about low level hardware usage or do you just not understand the convolutions that must occur to abstract it away and make your code look superficially clean to attempt safety you could still have with the same method in C? Surely you're not claiming that in unsafe code Rust is somehow safer than C, because that would be idiotic. And you're blaming the pilots and/or the training they received for the software being faulty? Sure the pilots could've handled it mistake free and no one would have died, but if the software had been written correctly then the pilots would not have factored into it. As to finding good programmers, I know of precious few. Sure, there are bugs in the Linux kernel, but they're found and fixed. How many bugs still haven't been found in Windows because it's closed source and can't be inspected by users. How many of those bugs are actively being exploited by malicious actors because they can only be discovered by Microsoft who doesn't even care anymore. These are rhetorical questions as no one can know except for Microsoft and the people using their bugs. Hopefully you're not going to claim they don't exist because you can't see them.
    1
  248.  @d3line  Doesn't really help people reading your comments to constantly quote things. For clarity's sake perhaps don't. As for the argument about safety. Are you saying that using Rust won't prevent all errors? Are you saying that there are common errors that it won't prevent? If you can admit both of those then I think we're done here because it can't prevent all errors and there are plenty of common errors that it won't prevent. If you can't admit that then you shouldn't be a teacher because you're indoctrinating students with magical thinking.
    1
  249.  @d3line  You're not making a whole lot of sense here. You don't support closed source, fine, I don't either, but to act as though no one else will, that's just stupid. If you're using a library you wrote yourself or one that someone wrote who is into open source, then yeah you'll see the potential failure points, but there will be multitudes who will be using closed source binary blobs and literally can not see into it without reverse engineering it. If you were claiming that Rust can't do that, and we both know you're not, then you'd be really idiotic. Instead you're obfuscating by alluding to one thing and saying the opposite, and don't tell me that's not intentional. With regards to low level code, you seem to be under the delusion that Rust will prevent all errors while still stating that it won't, or maybe it's just your unwillingness to acknowledge that you agree with me on this point, but at the low level some of us write code at, Rust offers no advantages that C doesn't also offer over and above assembly. Further, there are far more compilers and target system code generators for C infrastructure than for Rust. From the sounds of things, you seem to be confused about a lot. At least I hope it's confusion because the alternative is gaslighting. If you're writing code at a high level, as in not system level programming, then use Rust if you want, even if it's still not the right choice for any job thus far. It won't make your code better than anyone else's code, and if you're a bad programmer you won't compare favorably to a good programmer no matter what language you're using.
    1
  250.  @d3line  Is English your first language and what kind of grades did you get in any English classes you took?
    1
  251.  @d3line  This explains so much. No wonder you can't understand me and keep saying things weirdly, you don't have a full grasp on English. I was beginning to think you were attempting to gaslight me, but nope, you just don't understand.
    1
  252. Rust rewrites almost never have feature parity. I would say never, but I haven't tried every single one, only about 30, which while none of them have had feature parity don't constitute the entire set.
    1
  253. You're kind of both right and wrong. Consider that division by zero will cause an exception to be thrown no matter what language you're using because it's baked into pretty much every processor. For instance, C doesn't have exception handling, you need to account for such an error in a different way. So while you are stuck with exceptions, it's not because the standard library uses them, it's because you can't get away from them on modern computers. However, you don't have to "account" for them in your own code. You could just write code that never generates them or you could ignore that they exist. I'd strive for option 1, but that's more difficult in C++ when new can throw them. Although, I rarely see people wrap new in a try/catch block, so it looks like not many care.
    1
  254. I disagree about the point on implementing a tree. If you really want to understand pointers well, write a tree data structure in C. You'll know both quite a bit better by the end. Of course it helps to have a good teacher and tutorials just won't cut it. If you can learn how by not allocating and instead using an array of pointers you'll be safer still without necessarily understanding pointers. If you use indices into an array, you'll definitely be safer and understand all the more.
    1
  255. He represented it symbolically which is probably the wrong way to demonstrate it. The stack grows downward and every push operation subtracts from the stack pointer by the size of the operand and then moves it into place where the pointer now points.
    1
  256.  @williamdrum9899  Read the original post, those are both powers of two.
    1
  257. Everyone knows that the best variable names are: int i[MAX_INTS]; float f[MAX_FLOATS]; char c[MAX_CHARS]; // et cetera. What better name for a variable can there be than i[42069]?
    1
  258. Languages that use 1-based indexing are wasting time and resources because they have to translate certain uses and assumptions about how you're using an array to correctly handle things. The sad part is that it's often interpreted languages that do that, and they need all the speed they can get. As for indexing into an array in weird ways, I often eschew unnecessary parentheses by using brackets in their place, and if that means I wrap the array itself in them then so be it. For instance, say you need to cast the array to a given type to index into it: index[( type * ) block_of_memory];
    1
  259.  @hovnocuc4551  How much simpler can it be to say the index is the offset to the element you want in the array. When you consider that more time is spent using a program than programming it, you might appreciate not wasting time processing things in weird ways.
    1
  260. @sergiitk When you consider that you have to issue a separate instruction to store the index in a register, then decrement it, then either use lea then mov, or just mov, to read from the memory, it adds overhead. You say negligible, okay, but then process a list of a million elements and maybe you'll start to appreciate how much overhead it costs you. If you're curious as to why you wouldn't just use lea then mov, without the other junk, you might be dealing with object sizes that aren't a power of two, or are too large to be handled in that way with lea.
    1
  261. @sergiitk So your program is the only one running on the system then? Okay. I tend to deal with older and embedded systems where these kinds of problems compound much more greatly than on your average modern desktop, and if it ran on a server it might be one of a million processes started up where it would also compound. If you want to write crappy code on your personal computer, go for it, but I actually have to think of others. Also, memory can be mapped to a hard drive, so reads and writes to and from memory can be as slow as file I/O because it can be file I/O.
    1
  262. @sergiitk The problem is of course when you have data that doesn't fit the cache, as well as when the index also needs to be retrieved from disk. Also, I very much doubt you've ever written a program where nanoseconds counted.
    1
  263.  @jonhdoe4119  Which is why it's better to have a programmer that doesn't need it, because C will work on 99% of those platforms while Rust, if it's lucky, will work on 10%. I'll say it again, there exist static analyzers for C. If you really need a borrow checker because you're a bad programmer then you can use one with C.
    1
  264. I watched a video yesterday that had me deciding to do AoC this year, and then as I'm catching up on my subs feed I see you doing it too. You make me feel so much better about the off by one error I had that stumped me for half an hour as I did part two. I ended up going with C because it's my favorite language, but I used a trie for the second part with the reversed strings of the numbers to do the last numbers backwards. Your attempts at doing C++ are funny, but I hope that wasn't a genuine struggle. Also, K&R bracing is disgusting, consider Allman next time.
    1
  265. My experiences working with others are that often those with an EE degree or anything math or non-CS related are the worst programmers, unless they have a passion for programming, that is. Math majors being the absolute worst, at least in general. There was one guy I knew who was a math genius, and he was one of the best programmers I knew, but he was most definitely the exception and not the rule. I would recommend that if someone wants to get into low level programming, read the Intel and AMD optimization manuals both and learn to read binary at a glance.
    1
  266.  @redcrafterlppa303  Are you going to do it as recursive descent or some kind of finite state machine or something else? Kind of reminds me of writing my first parser in high school in Pascal. That was fun.
    1
  267.  @redcrafterlppa303  I hope you have a copy of the dragon book, but you should also look into the book that LCC was written for, A Retargetable C Compiler by Fraser and Hanson. Just try to save money by buying used copies because the dragon book is overpriced.
    1
  268.  @chainingsolid  A language like C could easily support modules, and should, but I'd still advocate for keeping the #include directive, not merely for legacy support, but also because it has other uses beyond just normal programming. The complaint about arrays doesn't really make sense though, because pointers are not only used for arrays and if you really want the behavior of other languages when it comes to arrays you can wrap them in a struct. You could use macros or static functions in a header to permit checked access. If you don't already know about its existence, look into _Generic. It has existed in the language as a very useful feature since C11.
    1
  269. Yeah, I've still never gotten past the first level of that game. :))
    1
  270. @user-tx4wj7qk4t It's amazing that so many Haskell programmers give Rustaceans a run for their money in the arrogant douchebag arena, but here you are a prime example. Computers are meant to do real work, not look pretty and do nothing. A human's life is short enough as it is, but if you can't translate math into a format suitable for a computer to run efficiently, then you're not a very good computer scientist.
    1
  271. This is why I don't update at the bleeding edge. If you wait for a proper review this kind of attack will bite you far less often. However, that said, the only way to be 100% safe is to write everything yourself, and there are maybe 10 programmers in the world who could do that, if they had the time.
    1
  272.  @nepp9574  I actually agree with all of that, and I don't personally use a GC library, but I still recommend the Boehm GC library which has existed for over 30 years to anyone that has problems managing memory. Of course, I also have my own data structures library that handles memory internally, so I have scant few locations where I need to worry about freeing memory.
    1
  273. But wait, where's day 6, 7 and 8?
    1
  274. Have you never heard of nobuild? You can easily have a build system written in the language you're using for any language you use. You just have to write it. If you use C, then find Musializer and pull a copy of nob from its latest sources and use that.
    1
  275. Mildly funny, since as we all know you can't do math on a void pointer.
    1
  276. Being from Texas, I can read Spanish. You should get one of those language learning apps to sponsor a video and learn another spoken language. Who knows, you might enjoy it.
    1
  277.  @CoNww3  I'm sure that we would survive such a collapse and come out the other side better for it.
    1
  278.  @CoNww3  If only I could force it to happen, but I'm not allowed to interfere in that way.
    1
  279. Kudos for actually using F# in any capacity.
    1
  280. How is that even a thing. Not asking, just astounded.
    1
  281. @Kiryu Kazuma Totally missed the point of what I said.
    1
  282.  @doktoracula7017  Better as in they've been taught all the techniques they would need to write good code and have gotten into the habit of adequately utilizing those techniques. There are bad kernel developers, yes, otherwise we wouldn't keep having the CVE's that we have. Mostly from buffer overflows too. A lot of people just don't know how to use a buffer correctly, to read input from external sources and how to check that it's correct. No programmer is perfect, but the simplest thing causing the most problems show that a lot of people still don't understand the most basic of things. Using a language which alleviates that challenge won't make for a better product, it'll make for a ticking time bomb. I'd go so far as to say such developers that make these mistakes should be excised from kernel development.
    1
  283.  @mk72v2oq  The point about different optimization levels is no longer valid. Don't write tricky code, write good code and the compiler can safely optimize well. This does require you to know about how the compiler does its job, as well as how the computer works, but if you don't know both what are you doing writing code for a kernel? The point about Rust was addressed in my original post, reread it.
    1
  284.  @wrockd  I didn't say all, I said the majority. And your assertion that any bug is inevitable is completely false. Things are worse now in terms of security than they were in the past because there's more malicious people in the world, case in point Rustaceans. It's not that code was necessarily written better, in fact I'd argue that most code was never well written, we just got lucky and it didn't blow up in our faces. Thinking that a new language will be a panacea is not only dangerous thinking, but it's completely false. Also, a lot of Python's usage for science and ML happens to be backed up by libraries written in C. Why? Because the majority of people using it for such purposes don't actually know how to program, so they write awful code that needs to be sped up by someone more knowledgeable.
    1
  285.  @williamdrum9899  Depends on what you meant. The usual example I see where people attempt to take the address of a float, cast it as a pointer to int and dereference it to acquire the bits actually does have code that will be generated. Since you have the floating point co-processor semantics on x86 chips it may (as in depending on the compiler's code generation) have to retrieve the number from the floating point stack. If on the other hand you mean interpreting some randomly constructed bit representation as a float so you can convert it to an int, then that too would require an instruction or two. Also, it should really be an unsigned char array for absolutely correct standard compliance and copied using memmove() or memcpy().
    1
  286. @Christopher Grant Pretty much all hashing algorithms have been written in C already. So why at this stage in the game would anyone write one from scratch at all when they can just use a library which has already been debugged for decades that's also written in C.
    1
  287. @Christopher Grant And can you point to an example of a new device utilizing a new algorithm, one that literally has not been implemented anywhere else, that is written in something other than either assembly or C?
    1
  288.  @diadetediotedio6918  Just to be clear, no. The thinking that using a different tool will make you safer when you have no clue what you're doing is what is destructive and is absolutely destroying the world. Participation trophies for the teams that didn't win is what has gotten us here, along with so many other things. If you're incapable of understanding a concept, you absolutely can not master that subject and have no business being in an industry where mastering that subject is key to success. Failure to understand that is why we have Rustaceans.
    1
  289. Yep, C++ requires casting malloc, which is dumb. Generally you shouldn't even use malloc in C++, though.
    1
  290.  @pauljarski7590  It's because of the "stronger" typing of C++. In C you don't need the cast and truthfully that makes more sense especially considering all of the implicit conversions that normally occur in C++.
    1
  291.  @monad_tcp  It's kind of hard for me to take this seriously when you misspell von Neumann, but it should be noted that the Harvard architecture doesn't have to mean a lack of self-modifying code. It just requires two separate address buses for code and data. Most Harvard architecture machines these days will have a ROM chip for the instructions, but sometimes it's shared data on that same chip, usually for static data, and sometimes shared both on that chip and on a RAM chip. However, it could just as easily mean a ROM chip and two RAM chips thereby allowing the program to be modified at runtime, and there are indeed long term setups like that with memory backed RAM.
    1
  292.  @DrewTNaylor  I actually received no notification for this post, double or otherwise, because I would've responded had I seen it, that it is appalling the sheer number of racists in the comment section. The fact that your last post got at least 6 upvotes, 7 if you didn't upvote yourself, is disgusting.
    1
  293.  @Cryo_Gen  Your first sentence is all you needed to say to confirm that you're a racist. Since no one seems to understand how they are being racist, I'll name it specifically. It's called the bigotry of low expectations. You expect less from black people than you do white people and thus denigrate them as though they're incapable of doing better. Your intentions are most definitely not good, and your lack of self awareness isn't something to be proud of.
    1
  294.  @technicolourmyles  It's not a troll. This is why I call leftism a mental disorder. You people don't even realize you're being evil, you just do it and think everyone around you is wrong.
    1
  295. It's a skill issue on the part of the developers, as well as overreach from the company. Telemetry is nearly always a bad thing that shouldn't be incorporated into any products, but there are tools that can check vulnerabilities in software which should have been used but clearly were not. And processing commands taken from external input should require far more scrutiny than it usually does, these moroffs just haven't gotten the message yet. They're not the only ones either, they're just the most recent to be discovered. It'll happen again and again and it won't matter what language they're using, Rust or otherwise, it's an overall skill issue. If anyone does read this they'll think that I'm saying the particular error here could have been checked by existing tools even though that's not what I'm saying, and they won't read this last sentence to see a clarification.
    1
  296.  @ragnarok7976  Yep, and that's one advantage of a GUI over a [CT]?UI. However, if you need to save configuration data or you're not implementing a GUI, you would then have to handle user input with tricky validation code. Of course, when you consider how that input is gathered by the system, it's not so much that only valid input is accepted but rather invalid input is ignored.
    1
  297.  @HrHaakon  Well, for starters, you're talking about C++, not C, but it's also unnecessary complexity, regardless of which language you're using, and annoying for anyone to use. The novice won't be able to set it up, and the experienced programmer won't need it.
    1
  298.  @HrHaakon  We're talking about programming languages here, and in this context words have specific meanings. You can't just apply class to a discussion relating to languages which don't provide any utilities for creating them. What you should have said is module, which C does have a definition for, and as such would make more sense in the general case as it will apply to nearly every language. However, that said, what you're talking about in that prior post is completely pointless because as I've already stated, you'll just be adding unnecessary complexity that a newbie won't be capable of setting up yet and a pro won't need.
    1
  299.  @HrHaakon  This whole channel mostly focuses on C or Rust, and neither has classes, and from what the propagandists keep telling me, Rust doesn't need help in that regard. And no, don't give me that BS about it being that simple because strings in C are not that simple and there are further implications to obscuring any string type, especially when you're using a language like C.
    1
  300. Something I think you should explore: typedef struct { ... } TFoo, *PFoo, Foo[1]; then functions that operate on a TFoo take as their argument a PFoo and you in your code declare a Foo. No need to malloc space for it yourself, and if it has internal space to be malloc'd you call FooCreate()/FooDestroy().
    1
  301. I keep resetting my Rust build environment because it's such a hefty beast. This latest time it was 5gb just to download the whole thing before even attempting to build it.
    1
  302. Depends on the code, though an added consideration is that a switch will be easier to read than a mess of if/else blocks.
    1
  303. The difference is that spaces maintain consistency whereas tabs do not. If I set my indentation at 8 and you at 4 things will not align correctly between our screens, but if I use spaces you will see my code the way I see it and there will be no confusion based on alignment.
    1
  304.  @tylerkropp4380  No, because if your editor is set to something different the code will not align correctly. How is this a difficult concept for people to grasp? Spaces are the only logical choice for consistency.
    1
  305.  @tylerkropp4380  Are you mentally handicapped? If you're reading someone else's code and working with it and they and you both use tabs and your tab-width is configured to display as 4 spaces wide and theirs 8, then the alignment will be distorted. If the one who writes the code uses spaces instead of tabs, the alignment will work regardless of how many spaces wide you set your tabs to be.
    1
  306. That feels like a bug, but it does the same for me despite p1 and q pointing to the same address.
    1
  307.  @1234567qwerification  Can you reference the section that specifies it?
    1
  308.  @1234567qwerification  I guess I'll have to find a copy of the C11 standard, as I don't seem to have it saved on this computer. Assuming that those references don't come from ChatGPT anyway, because none of those equate to this being valid behavior in the current standard.
    1
  309.  @1234567qwerification  Okay, and apparently the standard didn't change substantially between then and now, and still, none of those equate to this being anything other than a bug.
    1
  310. Except that you can't jump out of a function with a goto.
    1
  311.  @AlbatrossCommando  Don't apply for work with the US government.
    1
  312.  @AlbatrossCommando  Would be nice, but knowing how to modify older projects would make you indispensable, and thinking that older code is inferior just because it's old is a red flag.
    1
  313.  @AlbatrossCommando  Can you give a valid reason or set of reasons to back up this hatred?
    1
  314.  @AlbatrossCommando  I don't guess you realize how stupid that sounds, but hating a language because it doesn't have a gimmick is as stupid as loving a language for any particular gimmick. Also, you can do OOP in any language, and C++ hasn't been a superset of C in decades along with the fact that numerous other languages have classes, and plenty of static analyzers exist for C that you don't need a borrow checker built into the compiler because it's a separate tool.
    1
  315.  @ИльяВитцев  True, but color inversion is better than nothing. Though, I use the shortcut Super+U for single window and Super+I for everything because I look at it as global functionality.
    1
  316. I would have preferred you describe the stack the way it's laid out instead of symbolizing it. After all, you subtract from the stack pointer because when you're first given a stack you are pointing to the end of the stack. Every push instruction essentially subtracts the amount of space for whatever object you're about to add so that you can move it into place where the new position of the stack pointer points. If you really want to get in depth, it'd be nice to explain how the loader sets up the stack for your program.
    1
  317. I'll say it again even though you'll never acknowledge it, but Rust has had a lifetime leakage bug for its entire existence, and chances are they won't be fixing it even in the next update. I'll also say it again that it doesn't even prevent all the memory errors it claims to prevent, it just handles them in a slightly different way than C. Buffer overflows can still happen and I've replicated this, and the program still crashes out. What's worse is the logical bugs that won't be discovered until it has had years of testing that the C version already had. Buffer overflow exploits keep happening, and it sucks, but that's because no one seemingly bothers to check user input and now they really won't with the move to Rust because they'll expect the language to do it for them. It only gets worse when you consider feature parity in most rewritten software doesn't exist. I've noticed that you've been getting sloppy with your videos over the past year and a half and you keep spouting false propaganda. I really wish I could deprogram everyone that keeps spreading lies about Rust, but it's one of the more insidious mind viruses that there is. It's like once you glom onto Rust and think of it as your god, you won't be dissuaded from turning everyone else to your cult.
    1
  318. @RustIsWinning No, I've tested a segfault.
    1
  319. @RustIsWinning It wasn't from using unsafe.
    1
  320. @RustIsWinning I didn't know there was a CVE for it. I'll have to look that up, assuming it is the same thing I found.
    1
  321.  @sergeysharov350  Since my first post was shadowbanned, I'll just say it directly to you, but that's a skill issue. Aside from having string functions that carried over from C that allow you to split strings on whatever characters you want without reallocating or moving anything, you could always use Boost which has had pretty much all of the features that C++ has added to each subsequent standard in the past 20 years, and Boost does have that functionality. If you want to consider that a disadvantage, then stop using `cargo` when you write something in Rust, because if it's not in the standard library then it's the same as using Boost or any other third party library. And if you want to complain that downloading and installing Boost is hard, then either learn how to actually develop or use Linux where it comes pre-installed with most distros.
    1
  322.  @_colonial_  The tools for checking correctness of programs written in C and C++ are far more mature than the tools for Rust, and have existed since before Rust did. If programmers don't use tools to ensure their code is correct, or better yet, learn how to write correct code from the start, then they probably shouldn't be a programmer anyway. You don't really need modules because PCH's exist. That's a feature that you can actually use, if you bother to learn how, whether you're using MSVC or GCC. Sorry for the late response, but YouTube loves to hinder users with viewpoints they don't like and it wasn't until the guy who wants to watch the world burn posted a response that I finally got a notification.
    1
  323. What about for the Genesis version? I've never found the towel and never gotten past level two because this game was so hard.
    1
  324. Ah yes, fuel my hatred for Go. I still haven't forgiven Go's designers for forcing K&R bracing. Especially when you consider that with superfluous braces you can use other styles and thus prove that they're liars when it comes to parsing.
    1
  325. @DeeaA-o5z I can't say I hate Python syntax, for the most part, but significant whitespace irritates me. I prefer Allman style bracing though, and most languages that use braces for scope allow me to use that style, but Go and `bc` both piss me off, along with every other forced K&R braced languages.
    1
  326. @RustIsWinning Are you telling me you'd prefer Go over Rust? I very much doubt it. As much as I hate both languages, even I would prefer Rust over Go, because at least it allows me to use Allman style bracing.
    1
  327. @RustIsWinning A programming language should help you do your job and get out of your way. It definitely should not be telling you what style to use when writing your code.
    1
  328. I doubt you'd have the time either since you also still have a day job, but we should start a project of writing a web browser, but without JavaScript and instead incorporate some other language as the scripting language. I'm suggesting Lua just because it's so easy to embed, and despite it being a bad choice.
    1
  329.  @vitalyl1327  For embedded applications you generally won't need dynamic allocations, this is true, but not all code is written for embedded use.
    1
  330.  @sent4444  I can't directly link it, but just Duck the AMD optimization manual and you should find it. The Intel optimization manual is also a good resource. They both provide some really good tips if you're thinking of getting into writing assembly or a compiler or just improving your code from a higher level.
    1
  331. No matter which way the stack grows that will be true of an array. The only way that will work is to turn off optimizations with the compiler and declare two separate variables, either in subsequent function calls as he does, or using an inner scoped block.
    1
  332. I don't know about clang, but gcc used to have an alloca function and may still, but due to C99 adding VLA's hasn't been warranted in that long.
    1
  333. I had no idea that Rust was this dysfunctional, but that explains so much of what I've experienced with it. Maybe someone working on it will see this and take this idea, that isn't originally mine but is a good one, which is to use a bytecode format for intermediate files. Libraries could be in a bytecode format and the linker could finalize them once they're downloaded, and this would allow better and faster integration with many processor types from one "binary". This is the approach that I decided to use for my own language and I'm nearly done writing the VM and the code generator, because of course I have it setup to work as both a compiled and interpreted language. I hope this will finally be the year I release it, but who knows.
    1
  334.  @trejohnson7677  The IR it uses isn't the same as what I'm talking about as it's much lower level and far more closely tied to the hardware.
    1
  335.  @baxiry.  From the TinyGo website they claim GC is supported on all platforms. Are you saying that's a lie or just inanely pointing out that you can turn off GC if you make the effort?
    1
  336.  @uremi.  Never heard of it until you mentioned it. Took a look, and it's interesting, and if you're suggesting it because it aims for better sandboxing, then it might well make a better choice than stock Lua for web uses. I'll have to take a look at the code more in depth later, but it built right out of the box, and that's always a good sign.
    1
  337. The fact that the company refuses to fix the code and has the gall to suggest that everyone using their devices just buy a newer one really pisses me off. Consider that if you want to avoid being soaked on monthly fees as well as having all of your data stolen by the companies that run cloud services that you setup your own cloud server using a NAS that you might not have the money to just go out and buy something new or even if you do, you might not wish to waste the money. I hope a class action lawsuit is spurred from this and they lose a LOT. If they open sourced the firmware and allowed people to fix it and reset it, then that would at the very least be A solution, but they did the second worst thing they could do.
    1
  338.  @rubenverg  When you have to align your code across lines. If you've never had to do it then you must be new.
    1
  339.  @rubenverg  No, you're thinking of tables where the indentation will be the same from one line to the next. If you're not doing a table the alignment will vary, especially with wrapped lines unless you're wrapping them the wrong way, which let's be honest, if you're fighting this hard for tabs you are, and if you're not wrapping long lines then you're doing it wrong.
    1
  340.  @rubenverg  That's one of numerous possibilities, and yes, tabs would not work correctly for such a case.
    1
  341.  @rubenverg  And like I said, if you're stacking spaces on tabs you're doing it wrong. They should never touch because that's how misalignment will propagate between users.
    1
  342.  @rubenverg  So everyone uses the same tab width that you work with. Got it. In larger teams, especially if you work in a corporate environment, it won't always be that way.
    1
  343.  @rubenverg  In that single example, sure, until two people on the team have different tab widths and start modifying the code.
    1
  344.  @rubenverg  Let's say you've got three characters for a type name and you use three characters for your tab width, you might just decide to press tab to indent from the type name and not give it a second thought and not realize what you've done wrong because they're invisible characters. Then let's say someone with 8 character tabs comes in to edit it, it'll look wrong. But that's just one example. Of course, if you used spaces for indentation and set your editor to insert spaces when you press tab, it won't matter how many times you indent, it'll always be the same. And good editors, like vim, and probably emacs, will actually allow you to set format control strings in the file itself to handle the differences per user. So the visibility of a space versus a tab will be irrelevant if everyone just uses spaces and sets the standard for the project.
    1
  345.  @rubenverg  I use vim and spaces, and I have no problems with my code being used by others. And I'd like to know what editor recognizes tabs to indent then switches to spaces when you're no longer wanting to indent. I know the answer is none, which means you'll either use tab for internal alignment, which is wrong, or you'll be pressing space a ton to align, which is also wrong.
    1
  346. It's actually the same either way because it's just allocating space. However, C99 gave us VLA's so the size doesn't have to be known at compile time. There used to be a common function that several compilers had as an extension called alloca() which could allocate space on the stack in basically the same way as VLA's work, but since C99 it disappeared.
    1
  347.  @toddmartin7030  It sounds like you don't actually understand what I'm saying. Let's try for simple words then, using the provided C library, especially for people who aren't as good at coding, is a good thing. And it will be there whether you use your own handwritten libc or not. So if you add your own on top, you're adding bloat. Using another language which has its own standard library and doesn't leverage the existing code is bloat. The only way it makes sense to not use a provided library is if you are writing your own OS for an embedded system, and even then only if you know what you're doing. If you don't, you'd be better off just using an existing libc. Although, there are some fairly good light ones for such purposes.
    1
  348. As to the schools, that's because they're run almost entirely by leftists these days. They're mental midgets who give participation trophies to ensure that no one is special because everyone is. Technical subjects shouldn't be taught by these creatures because they don't know what anything means or how anything works, they just want things to work on unicorn farts and sprinkles. As to the issue of mainframes using Cobol, the financial institutions that use them want something that is solid, not something that will need debugging and they're smart enough to see that new code is often garbage. Also, they don't like spending money where they don't need to, and since the old code works, why spend money to replace it with something untested and untrusted. So if you want to make serious bank, yeah, learn Cobol. If you want to make fun programs that millions know they're using and might make you good money, learn C++. If you want to make useful programs that people know they're using but might not make you good money, then learn C. No one will know you wrote it if you use Cobol, but billions will use it, so if you want fortune but no fame, then go the Cobol route.
    1
  349. This is a rather unfunny April Fools day joke. Potentially dangerous too since a lot of dummies will probably go and use Rust now instead of a better programming language.
    1
  350.  @rumfordc  Of course the foundation isn't the language itself, and that has been around for longer than the game.
    1
  351. I'm not inclined to call this a bug at all. It's up to the program using the library to sanitize user input and anything else is abdicating your responsibility as a programmer. The real bug is in people's education that they thought this was a language or library bug instead of a failure on their own part.
    1
  352. While this is obviously a joke, the sentiment is very true. Functional programming languages will rot your brain.
    1
  353.  @linkernick5379  Rust doesn't solve the problem of cross-platform problems. They've explicitly stated a minimum CPU that it'll run on for x86 machines which means it won't run on half the desktops I have and then they target SBC's. It's just stupid is what it is and they're merely slapping people in the face. C is far more cross-platform capable, even if it requires you to use a configure script to make it easy, it'll still run on really old platforms that Rust gives the middle finger to. And nothing is more interoperable with C than C. As for safe {insert X}, that's BS. It makes you work harder to be unsafe, making it an even more intentional decision to be so, but it doesn't make you safe as a blanket statement. You have always had the option in C, and intelligent programmers have taken that option, to write libraries of code that you reuse which abstract a lot of things making future code that you write as safe as can be. Who in their right mind rewrites linked list code whenever they need it in a project instead of just using the code they already wrote, if you even use a simple linked list anyway. And finally, defining the tooling that every programmer will use to interact with your language is a really stupid idea. It creates a vague understanding of the underlying way in which the code will work and makes it impossible to replace in the future. Using LLVM as they do is a pretty cheap way to push out a new language, but that further has them depending on a separate project while they're attempting to define the tooling and they still restrict it.
    1
  354. Yes, because of the way C does multidimensional arrays. Though, an array of pointers doesn't qualify as a multidimensional array, and in general you shouldn't do it, so don't.
    1
  355. The problem with calling Rust memory safe and C not is that the unsafe keyword exists. While Rust makes it more of an intentional decision, a knowledgeable programmer can still write code that is perfectly safe in C. On top of that is the fact that Rust is annoying to program in because of how explicit you need to be, it's like writing early C++ only it's lacking a lot of the features that made C++ fun back in the early aughts. Now with the standard library that C++ has and the massive array of language features, we'd be fools to cripple ourselves by using Rust for anything serious. Of course, C hasn't stood still in all that time and one of the features that I'm excited about them adding is #embed.
    1
  356.  @BryanAnderson-o1u  You can, but it'll be out of date within a month and any new projects you find won't work. You'd be better off using a more stable language that isn't under such constant change.
    1
  357. Computers were a mistake. We should all be using pigeons to send messages that aren't sensitive, and delivering in person those that are.
    1
  358.  @kuhluhOG  Can confirm /dev/random is annoying.
    1
  359.  @heckerhecker8246  Learn English, it'll help you.
    1
  360.  @heckerhecker8246  Let's try this one more time. It's in his voice and sarcastic. If you don't understand that then there's no hope for you.
    1
  361.  @NinjaRunningWild  Incorrect attempt at calling him out. He's right that there are other architectures besides x86, whether 32 or 64 bit. Doesn't mean that any of them are better, and in fact all the RISC types suck, but they do exist. So for the op to use x86 specifically as an example is technically wrong, even if the rest of what he said is absolutely right.
    1
  362. You should promote either nasm or fasm instead and perhaps aim for at least some good practices in programming. Set some constants, import some kernel headers so you don't have to use "magic" numbers.
    1
  363.  @abcdef-fo1tf  You can use any language as long as you've got either the compiler for it to generate .dex files or can use a stub and FFI the code you write.
    1
  364. In truth the 70% figure was only from their own in-house code and really only speaks to the symptom and not the disease. The disease is not checking user input. All problems with otherwise logically correct code stem from there.
    1
  365. @RustIsWinning I know you have problems with reading comprehension, but try to read it again and maybe you'll understand what I'm saying.
    1
  366. Or, funny thought this, you could plan the code better and not have to refactor in hugely disruptive ways like that. Also, since a goto can't jump between functions, yeah, it'll still work if you copy the entire section of relevant code.
    1
  367.  @BalintCsala  The hugely destructive descriptor is when you break something by copying and pasting code to move it around. No one ever does that correctly and it always leads to breakages. I suppose if you're a bad programmer then a team manager like me would be annoying, but no one I've worked with thought so. Benefit of being able to pick your team, you can pick only the good programmers.
    1