Comments by "Anony Mousse" (@anon_y_mousse) on "Rusticl Brings A Massive New Feature To Mesa" video.

@Tsudico Yeah, I don't need a lesson in how Rust works.
5
@entelin If they're the hardest to notice in advance, then how does Rust solve them in advance?
4
@SkyFly19853 None of what you're talking about has to do with the language. None of that makes it a good language. It still sucks.
3
@SkyFly19853 There's too many people pushing Rust for it to fail. It'll still be here in 20 years, for better or worse.
3
@coatlessali You literally don't understand rhetorical questions, what I was addressing of the first post and what I was addressing of @Jatre's post.
3
@terrydaktyllus1320 This is true, but also consider that with one or two classes of errors out of the way, there are still many more that newbies won't know about and how to avoid them. One of the problems I have with Rustaceans is that they act like the language "solving" two classes of errors means every program will be perfect and free of errors.
3
@Silver_Adventures I actually appreciate when a project telegraphs its usage of a given language. Makes it easier to avoid something written in Python.
3
@SkyFly19853 Python has been around nearly as long as C++ and it has sucked that whole time and it still sucks. Age of a language doesn't matter. Number of adopters doesn't matter. Design philosophy matters, and very few languages have a good one. If you're looking for a job, corporate adoption matters, but if you're just interested in writing good code, then it doesn't matter one bit.
2
@kpcraftster6580 That's an interesting take, but I consider myself a keen observer of human behavior, and seeing the world around me, I think it's a safe bet that it'll still be here in 20 years. How widely it'll be used I couldn't say at this point. Technology changes, and a new language could pop up that takes its place as the favored one, but like Python, it'll have enough code around that people will still be learning it and using it.
2
@rosefeather_ Actually, what I meant is that it's a far easier task than people make it out to be. Short of incompetence on the part of the developers, Rust could not possibly fail to help.
2
@coatlessali His original post implied that it was difficult to accomplish that goal. It is not. My rhetorical question was meant to point that out.
2
@VADemon If you want to argue that people writing garbage code makes it difficult, go for it, that's not my point at all. If dumb people need help and take advantage of help given, then so be it, but a good programmer can very easily, if they're not a lazy git, write code that doesn't have leaks. It just requires that you write code defensively.
2
@Luxalpa That's a nonsensical generalization. Two good programmers working together won't even need to communicate and will have no problems. Also, it sounds like you think that Rust is the only language which solves these issues. If you didn't mean to give off that false impression then you may want to reword that.
2
@Watcher In other words you don't understand how incremental development works. Those lines of code weren't written in one day, they were written over many years. And as we all know, not every programmer working on the project is a good programmer. You don't need the language to do it for you, you just need to pay attention to what you're doing. If all else fails, there are static analysis tools that they could use, if they had the desire to make the project bulletproof.
2
@Watcher Right, so you're either admitting that static analysis isn't perfect and thus Rust can't actually 100% solve the issue either, or you're arguing foolishly that its static analysis is perfect while the tools doing the same job for C suck ass. So which demagoguery is it?
2
@Watcher Ah okay, so it's secret option number three and option two, you don't actually know what static analysis is and Rust's static analysis is somehow magically superior to the professionally written static analysis tools specifically for C. Got it.
2
@Watcher And a doubling down of not knowing what static analysis is. Okay.
2
@Watcher Odd that YT didn't give me a notification, but what you seem to be arguing is that it's doing dynamic analysis. Which as you admit with regards to bounds checking has a performance impact. So if Rust performs as well as C then it can't be that or the performance claim is at least sometimes a lie. These are all tradeoffs that the programmer should know will happen and know how to implement themself, but I bet most Rustaceans won't know because they seem to all be brainwashed reality deniers.
2
@Watcher So then its analysis with regards to memory leaks is entirely static. Which leads us in a circle. Are you still not understanding?
2
@Watcher I've been reading the code for the past year. It's not encouraging. Your statements aren't either and truthfully, most Rustaceans seem to be just as mindless as you. You parrot talking points with no understanding of what they mean and fall into this trap of thinking Rust is your savior when it's not doing anything that C programmers haven't already been doing both manually and with third party tools for years. So congratulations, you can do something complex with less effort and let idiots program. You're using a slightly better Python.
2
@imtiredtoday I really wish Rustaceans would give it a rest. Actually learn how things work and stop trying to peddle this lie that Rust prevents every error. It does not. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I realize that unsafe code in Rust invalidates literally every argument. You can make all the claims you want, and say "but why would you do that stupid thing that will guarantee your code breaks and/or is unverifiable". And to that I answer, why would you do things in C++ which are against best practices? It's the same thing, only here you're invalidating all the checks whereas with C++ whatever checks it has are still there and you can add compiler flags to make them more stringent. It's mind bogglingly stupid to have this giant gaping hole, tell people not to use it, and then say your language is safe. C++ doesn't give you any false illusions, it outright tells you its dangerous and if you follow best practices then none of that matters because your code will be safe. Rust just outright lies to you.
2
@imtiredtoday Uh huh, so you're trying to explain a programming language that you don't know to someone who does know it? Sheer fucking hubris.
2
@SkyFly19853 Didn't say you were, and I wouldn't care if you were either. At this point, I'm pretty sure it'll succeed, and one might even say it already has succeeded.
1