Comments by "Anony Mousse" (@anon_y_mousse) on "the TRUTH about this NEW Language (BETTER Than Rust and C++?)" video.

@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
@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
@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
@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