Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Mental Outlaw"
channel.
-
189
-
133
-
101
-
47
-
43
-
36
-
@link1565V2 If you want to use a browser or games, you don't need to even touch the command line tho, if you're just doing normie crap, you can jump on almost any major distro and never need to use the terminal, the reason you do it is because its faster, better at reporting errors, better at defining specific behavior, and is often cleaner to work with, but normies don't care about those, and the applications that require you to use it beyond that are not something a normie will ever think about. In using xfce on Manjaro, it was stupid easy to use the application manager installed, which is worse then the one on Mint or Ubuntu.
35
-
32
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
19
-
18
-
16
-
@godfather7339
"whenever the government has interfered"
Not a principled argument.
"it has lead to breaking monopolies,"
And when has the trust-bust results ever competed with someone that wasn't the result of trust-busting? Didn't happen with the steel mills, didn't happen with the railroads, and didn't happen with telecommunication. To this day every company of those busts are either directly or indirectly the result of the original trusts. And that's if the government doesn't own them. And look at the paper trails and economics behind each of those trusts, they did not in fact compete in the market beforehand, they were leveraging local, state, and federal force to ensure their monopoly stayed in place to the the day they were busted. And after the bust they became practical utilities that still operated like a cartel, as a result you got more regulations on what you could and could not do as those companies.
"if there hadn't been the US gov we would still have just one gas company"
In all but name there is only one, you still can't explain the economics behind this and you don't even care to notice that the only reason the prices and service is the way it is because the government regulates the prices and manipulates the market. Gas still does not operate as a part of the market and its almost entirely managed by government force alone. There is no market force that applies to the gas company because they are provided for by our tax dollars.
"This is a proven thing and I don't think it's even worth debating about."
Then why respond? Clearly you don't believe this position for if you did then arguing with me would not be done for I am apparently so irrational that I am not worth the time. See your position is already contradictory and hypocritical by you looking down upon my arguments without looking at them while you also seek to stoke your superiority complex of your position. Quite arrogant and ignorant if I do say so. Also you understand nothing about economics if you claim economic principles are not worth debating.
"If we had been living in the free market, there would have been just 1 company handling everything."
How do you know this? Because some school told you? What reason, what logic, and what demonstration has shown this to be true? Have you examined the economic factors and weighted them independently or do you just trust the word of same random philosopher? What values do you carry that bias you towards such a position? Because it is a bias, one you inherently do not wish to examine honestly. Do you even understand the position you are arguing? This is the exact logic that socialists use to justify domination over public life, this is not a foundation argument, its a baseless claim, it has no reason nor substance behind it. You do know facts require rational behind their position right? Just as statistics need justification (not explanation) so too does economics, and you don't get to interpret it as you wish.
"Can you tell me, what is stopping you from starting your own Amazon, or Google, or Facebook?"
Legally a lot of things, copyright and trademark stand in my way, not to mention I am not allowed to buy land without government approval which I need to state a purpose for, to which I can still get rejected for that specifically, (also need really good credit to do that for no reason) also need to contact a bank and get approved by them too, I also need to get an enterprise plan for networking which is also dominated by a monopoly still who exists at the behest of the government. I need to then buy a business license for operating at any moderate level. I also gotta pay many legal fees for the sake of the business and I won't receive a single subsidy, tax break, or tax credit and I have to manage it all by myself or pay out money for someone to manage that. It is technically possible for me to do that, just as it is technically possible for me to buy a gun in California, but how am I to do such as a regular joe? Look at all the loops I have to jump through and money I have to pay out before I even get a chance to compete? All that is spent capital before I get to anything that would give me profit? And I can't receive any of the government's provisions (nor assistance or backdoor deals, least without bribes) until I prove that my business is highly valuable. And in this economy wrecked by the crash of the dollar, good luck paying the unreasonably ever increasing prices. None of these things that I laid out (which I might add are massively incomplete, there's way more to it) are nor should be necessary for me to build a tech business, I shouldn't even be needing to contact the government outside of maybe telling them of the land I own (which my real estate contractor could do for me) but yet I can't. This drives the cost to be many hundreds to thousands of times more expensive then the endeavor would have been if the government did not seek to control and intervene in every aspect of my and everyone else's lives.
"How is the Gov stopping you from creating these things?"
By the way the list goes on and on. The most I could feasibly do is build a website and there is a possibly I'd still have a shakedown done on me for that.
"The only thing stopping you is Facebook itself, not the gov in any way."
Really? So I don't need to ask the government and the networking company to hook up my tech business? Or to buy a building? Or for the legal and business hoops? I need to ask Facebook for all that and more? Despite the fact I quite literally have to file all of that with both the local and federal government and payout massive sums of cash to them alongside already paying taxes to them. So its Facebook holding me down? Yeah, that makes logical sense.
Good job with the fallacies.
"The bigger question is, monopolies are many times more effecient than some small factory,"
You understand nothing about the word efficiency nor economics. Facebook and Google aren't even slightly efficient, if you knew even a fraction of the software industry you would never have claimed such a foolish thing as that. Everything I've built in software with my own two hands have been momentously more efficient and effective then what they've built, the only things I can't beat on them is money and manpower. Over 60% of their employees don't do anything for most of the day, majority of it is spent goofing off claiming they're doing something when they aren't. And yeah argument from experience or argument from authority fallacy, but there isn't really another way I can demonstrate against such a claim since its not even an argument.
15
-
@link1565V2
"There is zero incentive for a normie user to transition to Linux."
Performance is a big one, and when all they're doing is using a browser, which is 90% of normies, its very easy if you merely give them a helping hand, plenty of other advantages that they'll only notice after the fact, but I know a lot of especially older folks that use old computers instead of paying for new ones, and telling them about lower resource usage and better performance always gets them on board.
"Yeah, it's far better than it used to be, but Windows is just better in that regard."
Outside of specific DRM stuff and anti-cheat, (which they're working on on the latest kernel version) you can pretty much play any game you want with very few hiccups, of all the games I have (around 300 games on steam alone, and I can play most of the non-steam ones on Wine anyway) and less then 15% of them are wholly incapable of Linux in any regard, I can even play Arma with Teamspeak cleanly and easily with mods. (granted that took work to get but Arma is already a massive hassle to get working, you're really not a normie if you can get it working on Windows in the first place) Also performance on games, even in Wine and Proton, still feels generally superior, there have rarely been a game I could say performed worse then what I had on Windows.
"But you'll never see widespread adoption of Linux amongst the non-tech-savy. They just don't care, and are more than happy with the OS pre-installed on their machine."
This is a stupid thing to claim, we're already an actual factor as far as commercial marketshare (even if small, its considered significant now) and it keeps growing, especially with companies like Valve pushing for it. This stuff takes time to happen, and it will grow over time as more people become more familiar with computers, we're still living in an age where most people don't understand how to operate in a computerized age, but soon enough that won't be an option unless all the tech dies, which is a rare chance. But everyone has more complex lives already, figuring out Linux is not more complex then figuring out a car, or the electricity in your house, or most other common work on the house or housework itself. All you need to do is make it a regular occurrence in their life and its literally no different from maintaining a house or car. And convincing those type of people takes a long time and can be initially hard, but once they're in, they're not leaving and its actually extremely easy to teach them.
15
-
14
-
14
-
Ben Kelly The problem is its still compensating for problems that it was designed with and will never be removed, and even worse is that its teaching people crap behavior, habits, structures, and conceptualization, which creates bad developers that never evolve, people abuse Javascript specifically because it lets you get away with too much, and nobody tries to fix that, which in turn introduces so many bugs and problems throughout all its uses (and in its development and spec) that will never get resolved and neither will anyone ever feel inclined to resolve, which means the same for security holes. (which are already easy enough, but Javascript is one of the major bits that makes it easier) Also the language spec itself is so full of bloat even beyond undefined behavior that never errors out, I know for a fact there are holes in it.
12
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@godfather7339
"if corpos managed to infiltrate democratic governments"
You do realize the same people live in all systems right? There are no good humans, everybody (including you and me) is corrupt and infiltrates the systems they participate in with immoral principles to some degree. The entire point is to separate the reliance on corrupt actors executing their power on anyone beyond themselves. Absolute corrupts absolutely. (Which is recognized because man is evil) With government interventionism they are the strongest, not weakest, they can (and very well have) legally kill people without question, whereas without being in the government (like say the government isn't allowed to touch the market at all) there is no capability to do that without breaking the law. (unless we live in a lawless society, which doesn't really exist, least of all for long) And there is no incentive to gain a government advantage if the government can't influence the market.
"that means corpos will just enslave us all in the free market,"
A market in which they can get a government to interfere in the market is not a free market, that is quite literally a fascist market, an extension of socialism. Or you could call it a corporate syndicalism, which is what fascism literally is as defined by Mussolini. (who based it on Marxist Syndicalists, if you actually cared about philosophic historicity)
"you are just proving your own arguments wrong"
By presenting no argumentation and claiming your worldview as fact by yourself. But who is the judge? By whose authority is that claim demonstrated? On what basis can you make such a claim?
"it means that there should just be no corpos, everything people controlled."
Only a fool believes people are capable to judge the lives of others. You can't tell me whats good for me and I can't tell you whats good for you of my own experience. I can tell you what is good for you based on an authority beyond me, but I have no authority to do such. And the same applies to every man, no government, no "peoples", to which you can not collectivize else you become a corporation, can control and regulate anything. Punishment is not preventative, its punitive, else its not punishment but abuse. Are you to whip your child to prevent him from stealing or killing? Why then am I punished for things I have never done?
By the way, Marx was a hate-filled racist psychopath that wanted most people dead, he had no love for the working class, he was part of the proletariat. Yeah its not an argument but given you want to use emotional pleas and "oh profit bad" then you should hear the objective emotional truth. By the way show me a system that doesn't require profit?
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
@sivvinod3187 Welcome to Youtube, where I can't post unless I spam multiple times, have tested on multiple computers, operating systems, browsers, networks, and accounts, and my account won't post unless I spam Youtube comments multiple times. And if I delete the post, all my posts can and have disappeared.
And that aside you do realize propaganda is defined by its content, not character right? Me spamming the comment section does not constitute a valid claim that what I said is propaganda. And not to mention propaganda to who? Who am I beholden to for which my "propaganda" helps? What rational do you have to claim that? I know who your claims are beholden to, they empower government and political power to those in charge as if they aren't corruptible. But when has my argument ever even been implemented by a political power? And where is you rational argument?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I don't see how having a compat layer for Linux is really a big deal here nor a bad thing, it should be fairly obvious that systems will centralize around certain aspects for the sake of dev speed, performance, and power, (this is a natural aspect of markets until the biggest members screw up and lose to the competition) supporting that in the BSDs would be highly useful, since Linux is inherently FOSS as well, if something screws up nobody is specifically required to adhere perfectly to it and that applies just as much to the compat layers, (especially when 99% of the compat layers only has to do with core functionality necessary for function anyway) and again with the BSDs FOSS the same applies to them. And that's aside from the capacity for Linux to not strictly require anything beyond the kernel for function, just because most common users will use or have things that do does not mean it is necessary, this isn't Windows, we don't strictly need the cruft of the common user to use the computer even as a desktop or run any application, consistent and common dependencies are excessively useful and anyone who gets mad that it happens is making a foolish argument, why do we need to keep reinventing the wheel? If you want native things you still have the choice.
3
-
@godfather7339 "whenever the government has interfered"
Not a principled argument.
"it has lead to breaking monopolies,"
And when has the trust-bust results ever competed with someone that wasn't the result of trust-busting? Didn't happen with the steel mills, didn't happen with the railroads, and didn't happen with telecommunication. To this day every company of those busts are either directly or indirectly the result of the original trusts. And that's if the government doesn't own them. And look at the paper trails and economics behind each of those trusts, they did not in fact compete in the market beforehand, they were leveraging local, state, and federal force to ensure their monopoly stayed in place to the the day they were busted. And after the bust they became practical utilities that still operated like a cartel, as a result you got more regulations on what you could and could not do as those companies.
"if there hadn't been the US gov we would still have just one gas company"
In all but name there is only one, you still can't explain the economics behind this and you don't even care to notice that the only reason the prices and service is the way it is because the government regulates the prices and manipulates the market. Gas still does not operate as a part of the market and its almost entirely managed by government force alone. There is no market force that applies to the gas company because they are provided for by our tax dollars.
"This is a proven thing and I don't think it's even worth debating about."
Then why respond? Clearly you don't believe this position for if you did then arguing with me would not be done for I am apparently so irrational that I am not worth the time. See your position is already contradictory and hypocritical by you looking down upon my arguments without looking at them while you also seek to stoke your superiority complex of your position. Quite arrogant and ignorant if I do say so. Also you understand nothing about economics if you claim economic principles are not worth debating.
"If we had been living in the free market, there would have been just 1 company handling everything."
How do you know this? Because some school told you? What reason, what logic, and what demonstration has shown this to be true? Have you examined the economic factors and weighted them independently or do you just trust the word of same random philosopher? What values do you carry that bias you towards such a position? Because it is a bias, one you inherently do not wish to examine honestly. Do you even understand the position you are arguing? This is the exact logic that socialists use to justify domination over public life, this is not a foundation argument, its a baseless claim, it has no reason nor substance behind it. You do know facts require rational behind their position right? Just as statistics need justification (not explanation) so too does economics, and you don't get to interpret it as you wish.
"Can you tell me, what is stopping you from starting your own Amazon, or Google, or Facebook?"
Legally a lot of things, copyright and trademark stand in my way, not to mention I am not allowed to buy land without government approval which I need to state a purpose for, to which I can still get rejected for that specifically, (also need really good credit to do that for no reason) also need to contact a bank and get approved by them too, I also need to get an enterprise plan for networking which is also dominated by a monopoly still who exists at the behest of the government. I need to then buy a business license for operating at any moderate level. I also gotta pay many legal fees for the sake of the business and I won't receive a single subsidy, tax break, or tax credit and I have to manage it all by myself or pay out money for someone to manage that. It is technically possible for me to do that, just as it is technically possible for me to buy a gun in California, but how am I to do such as a regular joe? Look at all the loops I have to jump through and money I have to pay out before I even get a chance to compete? All that is spent capital before I get to anything that would give me profit? And I can't receive any of the government's provisions (nor assistance or backdoor deals, least without bribes) until I prove that my business is highly valuable. And in this economy wrecked by the crash of the dollar, good luck paying the unreasonably ever increasing prices. None of these things that I laid out (which I might add are massively incomplete, there's way more to it) are nor should be necessary for me to build a tech business, I shouldn't even be needing to contact the government outside of maybe telling them of the land I own (which my real estate contractor could do for me) but yet I can't. This drives the cost to be many hundreds to thousands of times more expensive then the endeavor would have been if the government did not seek to control and intervene in every aspect of my and everyone else's lives.
"How is the Gov stopping you from creating these things?"
By the way the list goes on and on. The most I could feasibly do is build a website and there is a possibly I'd still have a shakedown done on me for that.
"The only thing stopping you is Facebook itself, not the gov in any way."
Really? So I don't need to ask the government and the networking company to hook up my tech business? Or to buy a building? Or for the legal and business hoops? I need to ask Facebook for all that and more? Despite the fact I quite literally have to file all of that with both the local and federal government and payout massive sums of cash to them alongside already paying taxes to them. So its Facebook holding me down? Yeah, that makes logical sense.
Good job with the fallacies.
"The bigger question is, monopolies are many times more effecient than some small factory,"
You understand nothing about the word efficiency nor economics. Facebook and Google aren't even slightly efficient, if you knew even a fraction of the software industry you would never have claimed such a foolish thing as that. Everything I've built in software with my own two hands have been momentously more efficient and effective then what they've built, the only things I can't beat on them is money and manpower. Over 60% of their employees don't do anything for most of the day, majority of it is spent goofing off claiming they're doing something when they aren't. And yeah argument from experience or argument from authority fallacy, but there isn't really another way I can demonstrate against such a claim since its not even an argument.
3
-
@godfather7339
"if corpos managed to infiltrate democratic governments"
You do realize the same people live in all systems right? There are no good humans, everybody (including you and me) is corrupt and infiltrates the systems they participate in with immoral principles to some degree. The entire point is to separate the reliance on corrupt actors executing their power on anyone beyond themselves. Absolute corrupts absolutely. (Which is recognized because man is evil) With government interventionism they are the strongest, not weakest, they can (and very well have) legally kill people without question, whereas without being in the government (like say the government isn't allowed to touch the market at all) there is no capability to do that without breaking the law. (unless we live in a lawless society, which doesn't really exist, least of all for long) And there is no incentive to gain a government advantage if the government can't influence the market.
"that means corpos will just enslave us all in the free market,"
A market in which they can get a government to interfere in the market is not a free market, that is quite literally a fascist market, an extension of socialism. Or you could call it a corporate syndicalism, which is what fascism literally is as defined by Mussolini. (who based it on Marxist Syndicalists, if you actually cared about philosophic historicity)
"you are just proving your own arguments wrong"
By presenting no argumentation and claiming your worldview as fact by yourself. But who is the judge? By whose authority is that claim demonstrated? On what basis can you make such a claim?
"it means that there should just be no corpos, everything people controlled."
Only a fool believes people are capable to judge the lives of others. You can't tell me whats good for me and I can't tell you whats good for you of my own experience. I can tell you what is good for you based on an authority beyond me, but I have no authority to do such. And the same applies to every man, no government, no "peoples", to which you can not collectivize else you become a corporation, can control and regulate anything. Punishment is not preventative, its punitive, else its not punishment but abuse. Are you to whip your child to prevent him from stealing or killing? Why then am I punished for things I have never done?
By the way, Marx was a hate-filled racist psychopath that wanted most people dead, he had no love for the working class, he was part of the proletariat. Yeah its not an argument but given you want to use emotional pleas and "oh profit bad" then you should hear the objective emotional truth. By the way show me a system that doesn't require profit?
3
-
@godfather7339
"if corpos managed to infiltrate democratic governments"
You do realize the same people live in all systems right? There are no good humans, everybody (including you and me) is corrupt and infiltrates the systems they participate in with immoral principles to some degree. The entire point is to separate the reliance on corrupt actors executing their power on anyone beyond themselves. Absolute corrupts absolutely. (Which is recognized because man is evil) With government interventionism they are the strongest, not weakest, they can (and very well have) legally kill people without question, whereas without being in the government (like say the government isn't allowed to touch the market at all) there is no capability to do that without breaking the law. (unless we live in a lawless society, which doesn't really exist, least of all for long) And there is no incentive to gain a government advantage if the government can't influence the market.
"that means corpos will just enslave us all in the free market,"
A market in which they can get a government to interfere in the market is not a free market, that is quite literally a fascist market, an extension of socialism. Or you could call it a corporate syndicalism, which is what fascism literally is as defined by Mussolini. (who based it on Marxist Syndicalists, if you actually cared about philosophic historicity)
"you are just proving your own arguments wrong"
By presenting no argumentation and claiming your worldview as fact by yourself. But who is the judge? By whose authority is that claim demonstrated? On what basis can you make such a claim?
"it means that there should just be no corpos, everything people controlled."
Only a fool believes people are capable to judge the lives of others. You can't tell me whats good for me and I can't tell you whats good for you of my own experience. I can tell you what is good for you based on an authority beyond me, but I have no authority to do such. And the same applies to every man, no government, no "peoples", to which you can not collectivize else you become a corporation, can control and regulate anything. Punishment is not preventative, its punitive, else its not punishment but abuse. Are you to whip your child to prevent him from stealing or killing? Why then am I punished for things I have never done?
By the way, Marx was a hate-filled racist psychopath that wanted most people dead, he had no love for the working class, he was part of the proletariat. Yeah its not an argument but given you want to use emotional pleas and "oh profit bad" then you should hear the objective emotional truth. By the way show me a system that doesn't require profit?
3
-
@godfather7339
"if corpos managed to infiltrate democratic governments"
You do realize the same people live in all systems right? There are no good humans, everybody (including you and me) is corrupt and infiltrates the systems they participate in with immoral principles to some degree. The entire point is to separate the reliance on corrupt actors executing their power on anyone beyond themselves. Absolute corrupts absolutely. (Which is recognized because man is evil) With government interventionism they are the strongest, not weakest, they can (and very well have) legally kill people without question, whereas without being in the government (like say the government isn't allowed to touch the market at all) there is no capability to do that without breaking the law. (unless we live in a lawless society, which doesn't really exist, least of all for long) And there is no incentive to gain a government advantage if the government can't influence the market.
"that means corpos will just enslave us all in the free market,"
A market in which they can get a government to interfere in the market is not a free market, that is quite literally a fascist market, an extension of socialism. Or you could call it a corporate syndicalism, which is what fascism literally is as defined by Mussolini. (who based it on Marxist Syndicalists, if you actually cared about philosophic historicity)
"you are just proving your own arguments wrong"
By presenting no argumentation and claiming your worldview as fact by yourself. But who is the judge? By whose authority is that claim demonstrated? On what basis can you make such a claim?
"it means that there should just be no corpos, everything people controlled."
Only a fool believes people are capable to judge the lives of others. You can't tell me whats good for me and I can't tell you whats good for you of my own experience. I can tell you what is good for you based on an authority beyond me, but I have no authority to do such. And the same applies to every man, no government, no "peoples", to which you can not collectivize else you become a corporation, can control and regulate anything. Punishment is not preventative, its punitive, else its not punishment but abuse. Are you to whip your child to prevent him from stealing or killing? Why then am I punished for things I have never done?
By the way, Marx was a hate-filled racist psychopath that wanted most people dead, he had no love for the working class, he was part of the proletariat. Yeah its not an argument but given you want to use emotional pleas and "oh profit bad" then you should hear the objective emotional truth. By the way show me a system that doesn't require profit?
3
-
@jm56585 Because its full of leftoid communists and pedophiles who attack and blacklist you (and for most instances, ban you) for anything that isn't extremely left wing and "inclusive", criticize, banned/blacklisted, there is no free-speech in Fediverse instances, and pedophilia is always nearing the top of popular instances. (unless they filter them out, but they still end up popular, you just stop seeing them publicly then) They constantly call everything that disagrees with them racist, nazi, fascist, and capitalist, and you will never be able to federate with anything if you even take a moderate or "neutral" approach, all it takes is you not banning one right-wing post and your instance will be blacklisted by all of the big instances and probably most of the smaller ones. And the mods in every Fediverse instance I've seen are honestly even more horrible people then the reddit mods and admins and that's not a joke, banning people for nothing. And many instances share "twitter-style block" blacklists. (like when "big twitter folks" share blocklists around with each other without ever even interacting with members on the blocklist, instances tend to do the same) This all results in an even worse leftoid pedophile echo chamber then reddit.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BSenta Pointing to something that does it worse doesn't resolve the issue and neither makes any issue even slightly better, its just misdirection, this is classic whataboutism, trying to throw C++ specifically under the bus for no reason (especially when the reason its annoying in C++ has nothing to do with the build system) and I wouldn't call pacman shitty, nor would I call clang, gcc, or msvc shitty. (nor would I call CMake all that shitty though definitely jank, but Scons is neither trash and neither is it jank)
All this aside though, I don't have an issue with a provided package manager, I have a problem with a requirement of a package manager just to use a language and its standard library, if I can't independently use a language separate from the package manager I'd rather the language never exist. The Unix philosophy's core is independent simplicity, keep things as simple and modular as possible, don't create interconnected networks of dependencies that become impossible to disconnect. This is why systemd in comparison is better and why I'd say as far as packaging goes on Linux even C++ is better, as it only requires the compiler alone, it doesn't even specifically require the library to compile the language. (though why you'd do this is beyond me) There is no reason to violate the Unix philosophy's core here. Its not even that hard to operate without it, just stop building interconnected dependencies.
2
-
@BSenta
"things around the language should be considered a part of the stack."
Why? To claim this case but not support it with reason is irrational and foolish. Also it violates many FOSS standard mentalities, POSIX-based philosophies and the Unix philosophy. That means it also violates the usefulness of Suckless philosophy which is quite prescriptive and should at least be considered when developing software. The more things you have the more complex the system and the more things that will go wrong. I have experienced this first hand with crashing system and failures and its demonstrated constantly to produce exploitable behavior and bugs. It is by all metrics known that simplicity can not be achieved by creating interconnected systems of reliance and dependencies but by disconnecting them and making them operate independent of each other. This is modularity and its the reason why systemd was so successful. (its so important that even on Windows, the king of interconnected systems, they have to rely on modularity especially regarding failure) It works with C and C++ as well since all they require is one dependency that can't be made any simpler, more modular, nor smaller. I would agree with the C systems being made even more modular but that would require breaking backwards compatibility which C can't do, so instead a C/C++ based language should've done it instead. unfortunately Rust failed this task momentously.
"Rust development is ergonomic because of that."
Every Linux and most Unix-based systems are way more ergonomic because they do what I have said, pointing to C/C++ and saying "its worse" is worthless and fallacious, if you don't expect improvement with time you are a fool, if you expect you should be praised just because you improved with time you are also a fool, (and if you most especially don't improve with time you are a moron) the expectation is making solutions in a manner that does better with less inherent failure which Rust in fact does fail at, it is still stuck with a massive dependency issue that is unnecessary for function under proper design principles.
"There's nothing wrong with having to build with cargo"
I have my own package managers that are better and I'm incapable to not install Rust with Cargo, there is no reason to expect that I should need Cargo because my system functions just fine and could even functionally build Rust if not for Rust forcing me to have it. I don't want it and I should not be forced to have it, and neither should Rust rely upon it, should it fail, it will bring the entire infrastructure of a Rust build down with it, and if one is so naive to believe that won't happen then you mustn't have been in software for a long time because that has happened for some of the dumbest and unknown reasons all the time. Rust is no special and shouldn't be treated as the savior language of C devs if its still violating basic design principles.
"your point is just concern trolling."
So is Linus Torvald concern trolling? How am I concern trolling when my whole point is that Rust is building under flawed design principles, suffering the exact same problems we have with npm, pip, and all the other dev environment packages that are necessary to the function of the build system. Rust is not unique in its requirements of a package manager and neither is it new even for a compiled language, nuget has been around for over a decade and it proved all the problems just as much, least back then it was not a strict requirement for .NET, nowadays it is, and the problem has only gotten worse with unnecessary dependency issues. If you think the requirement for a package manager to build a language that should be able to run without any dependencies is too much to ask, then I ask you to stay out of embedded environments and never touch anything that required high performance development.
2
-
@Ultra289
"so basically you act like if your experience is the same as everybody else experience..."
If my experience and experience of my friends and family, and the experience of people in the Linux community as well isn't gonna shape what I see as general experience, then I don't know what will. There is no way to measure any individuals experience because I'm not some random individual that isn't me, and I can't know every single person's experience, I can only extrapolate general reality by using my experiences and everyone I've met, we don't have anything more concrete to go off of, so if you don't expect me to do such, I'm not so sure you're thinking clearly.
"Cuz my experience on Linux is basically sum up on stuttering and lower fps than Windows ,slow start ups (yeah i use hdd, not SSD) and basically a slow system, and yeah official Nvidia drivers were being used"
NVidia drivers unfortunately make a big difference with Linux, NVidia absolutely despises the Linux community and have gone so far out of their way to throw it under the bus, honestly the open source NVidia drivers are probably just about as good if not better at this point, (which is not suppose to be the core decision when choosing which drivers to install) but truthfully Linux really needs anything that isn't NVidia.
But even then, with NVidia, I have never seen stuttering nor low FPS compared to Windows, granted most of what I've worked on have been Intel and AMD, but I've only ever seen low frames and slow stuttering crop up on broken "native ports" (like Arma 3) or strange graphical functionality in Wine, which usually gets patched in Wine turning those games into supported Wine games anyway. It depends on your system config and the specific distro you use as well, Debian-based systems aren't the fastest, it also depends on a few other factors alongside that, like if you're using Wayland, its unfortunately not entirely upto snuff yet. There can be a variety of reasons besides what I do know and have said that you can have such problems, and 90% of them aren't Linux specific problems, its usually because you choose the wrong distro for the job or have the wrong daemons/services. (or they're not up to date) Could also be some other program you didn't update, didn't fix the swappiness of your system. (at 8 to 16 gigs, you should have a swappiness of 10, which means your computer will start to try fully using the swap file at 10% usage, usually its set to 60, even on Ubuntu, least last I checked, which means it pushes to swap at 60% which is slow as hell, that behavior doesn't have a definition in Windows at all)
"You have to realize that not everyone had the same experience on Linux, which is something Linux fanboys cant understand that basic thing and they think that its our fault ,not the os ,this is another reason why"
You're being entirely unreasonable expecting me to know the experience of people I've never met and whose experiences I've yet to see manifest. And that aside, often times it is the person's fault specifically, when getting into Linux, you don't just Google its name and leave it at that, Linux is not Windows itself, there are distros to examine, which a normie is entirely capable of researching without being overwhelmed, (or expected to ignore) it be no different then getting reviews and recommendations for something on Amazon, (and yes, there are regular people using Linux who can give you reviews like that, not to mention if you run into a problem, you can Google it easily) you need pay some attention to what you're doing, which you still have to do with Windows, you don't just go even with Windows, there are things you need to do beforehand, like drivers and installs, setups, some normie will even what permissions, and others will try to squeeze performance. Also I might add your experience no more defines everyone else's experience then mine.
"Csgo and dota 2 were THE most stuttering games i had (specially when i used manjaro for some reason)"
Using Manjaro right now, I've got over 500 FPS on CSGO (on most maps) with no stuttering and low input lag, and that's with Chrome and Discord open. My rig is pretty alright for gaming, I've got a lot of CPU cores on AMD, 16 gigs of ram, and an AMP Video Card, so it could've been your NVidia drivers screwing your experience as I said. That one we know is not a Linux problem, that's NVidia being anti-competitive (and anti-open source) again. Manjaro also isn't the only distro, and you might have less issues with a Debian system (or not, but you might, Debian-based distros are way more drag and drop to Windows) cause Manjaro being Arch-based, it only becomes a bit easier to work with, its still Arch, even if it is one of the best performing distros in a vaccum. (given you have decent drivers)
"Yeah, memory usage was lower, Linux wins on that (except gnome) but since on Windows its also possible yo reduce memory usage by "nuking" the os is nothing rly special , i managed to reduce the RAM usage on Windows 10 from 30% to 14% (out 7,99 RAM, 0,1 of said RAM used by the Intel HD gpu)"
Could go lower on Linux, but you do start to get to less user friendly territory, but fact of the matter is that Linux lets you do that natively, Windows does not.
"Google didnt help at all and the Linux community forums (specially arch....) are just a nuclear power plant full of toxic barrels"
Huh? I get that the Arch guys can be pretentious since "oooooo, I'm on Arch peasant, I'm so special" is very much a thing and I've run into them a few times, but I don't usually run into those folks often, least not enough that I would say it kills the experience, though you did also choose a distro that of course was gonna give you the most hassle when it comes to users, Arch is one of the most pretentious of the common distros. Again, I think in choosing Manjaro, you were probably shooting yourself in the foot. Beginner distros are Ubuntu and Mint Linux, Manjaro is more of an intermediate distro marketed poorly.
"Yeah, Windows 10 has its flaws but still does what users want to do while Linux still cant detect all printers xd and other considerable issues of It"
Quite probably all your issues sound like they were specific to Arch tbh, Manjaro can be great for a lot of things, but having easy access to drivers and inbuilt drivers is (as far as I've experienced) not one of them. You have to be very specific about the drivers you install and know where they are, in Ubuntu and Mint Linux, those problems from my experience are less common and usually because the specific interface for the driver is weirder then usual. Those two distros tho were designed from conception to be as easy for Windows users to drop into and for the most part they are, Ubuntu is often joked for being the Windows distro of Linux, which isn't all that unwarranted.
2
-
2
-
@hanro50 "tell the folks that who keep complaining about thier IP leaking"
Idiots with opsec, anyone with decent computer skills should not have IP problems, that's otherwise straight shameful and I'd dare say they don't actually know anything about computers. It's not even a browser problem, that's just how networking works.
"Well without it you'd need a dedicated application."
Assuming you need a dynamic web which in many regards you don't, and even if you do, you don't need most of the excess exploitative trash that comes with it, 95% of Javascript functionality, most especially the most exploitative parts of it, could be disabled and the only thing truly lost is excess holes in the system. Doing so would also lose you much of the security concerns you'd bring up because even if they aren't strictly Javascript only, they are intrinsically linked and only usable via Javascript. Besides, a dedicated application you pipe between can actually be sandboxed easier then a browser, not that sandboxing a browser is hard in the first goddamn place, but if you really care, separation of functionality is just straight superior, and for a browser it would not be that hard to do if anyone actually cared about performance, security, or privacy. At the end of the day though, the blame is on Javascript and the thinking Javascript enables you to use.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@PaulSmith-gi5bf I know a bunch of languages (C, C++, C#, Javascript, Python, Lua, Java, Dart, Typescript, ect.) and even know a bit of Rust, I've worked on a bunch of different languages for all sorts of project, but as someone who likes language design and has written his own recursive descent parser by hands a few times now, (in a few different languages) I despise the language design of Rust already, I like its ideas but I hate how they were designed into the language with a passion, for example I hate languages with postfix type declarations, I especially despise the idea of separating a typing syntax from deduced typing. (I can forgive it in supersets of a language that are primarily dynamically typed, who once never had type hints even, but not when the language is designed to support strict static typing) There are too many projects I've been on when at any moderate system, type declarations become encouraged for the sake of code review and a language that inherently discourages that is poorly designed for team projects, a good language should minimize the amount of need for the intellisense for code review, that just makes it a hassle to do. This is just one of my myriad of design problems with Rust and why I tend to think its designer are actual morons to do things the way they did, they don't care about practical cases, they just don't want to be like C/C++ in my opinion. (which is stupid because it will build up to the C/C++ problem soon enough, don't try to be the cool hip thing just because you start out cleaner, you never will end cleaner, its inevitable in language design, you can't predict the future)
Another thing I despise about Rust is its community, which is hyper-aggressive and shoves it down everyone's throat all the time and tries to make every C/C++ project into a Rust project and get offended and mad when you criticize Rust, honestly it was no wonder imo why the Rust Foundation was toxic if how even a notable amount of Rust fans respond is attack people who criticize the language. You don't have to believe me, but my experiences with the community are my experience, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, it just leads me to another thing I absolutely despise about Rust. You simply don't hear of C/C++ fanatics, we know their problems and we accept them professional and still like the languages because of it, I wish they would stop insisting its the best thing since sliced bread.
Lastly of all is the Rust Foundation being a toxic mess of bull crap, I can't support a group of fools who especially push woke agenda bullcrap down my throat, if we're gonna be software engineers and programmers, we either be neutral and keep things out, or we're going to have to fight, and if we want to fight I am totally on board to do so, but its not gonna be pretty and nobody will come out of that happy. If you want to come out with a functioning community, shoving things down people's throats is guaranteed to never work, and for the foundation to attempt that, something is definitely wrong with the people, I don't trust anything regarding Rust anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sivvinod3187 Welcome to Youtube, where I can't post unless I spam multiple times, have tested on multiple computers, operating systems, browsers, networks, and accounts, and my account won't post unless I spam Youtube comments multiple times. And if I delete the post, all my posts can and have disappeared.
And that aside you do realize propaganda is defined by its content, not character right? Me spamming the comment section does not constitute a valid claim that what I said is propaganda. And not to mention propaganda to who? Who am I beholden to for which my "propaganda" helps? What rational do you have to claim that? I know who your claims are beholden to, they empower government and political power to those in charge as if they aren't corruptible. But when has my argument ever even been implemented by a political power? And where is you rational argument?
1
-
@sivvinod3187 Welcome to Youtube, where I can't post unless I spam multiple times, have tested on multiple computers, operating systems, browsers, networks, and accounts, and my account won't post unless I spam Youtube comments multiple times. And if I delete the post, all my posts can and have disappeared.
And that aside you do realize propaganda is defined by its content, not character right? Me spamming the comment section does not constitute a valid claim that what I said is propaganda. And not to mention propaganda to who? Who am I beholden to for which my "propaganda" helps? What rational do you have to claim that? I know who your claims are beholden to, they empower government and political power to those in charge as if they aren't corruptible. But when has my argument ever even been implemented by a political power? And where is you rational argument?
1
-
@sivvinod3187 Welcome to Youtube, where I can't post unless I spam multiple times, have tested on multiple computers, operating systems, browsers, networks, and accounts, and my account won't post unless I spam Youtube comments multiple times. And if I delete the post, all my posts can and have disappeared.
And that aside you do realize propaganda is defined by its content, not character right? Me spamming the comment section does not constitute a valid claim that what I said is propaganda. And not to mention propaganda to who? Who am I beholden to for which my "propaganda" helps? What rational do you have to claim that? I know who your claims are beholden to, they empower government and political power to those in charge as if they aren't corruptible. But when has my argument ever even been implemented by a political power? And where is you rational argument?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CD-vb9fi
"You said you don't have a problem with this."
Contextomy and strawman fallacy. You didn't even bother to read the whole of what I wrote.
Just as much as its in the right of civilians to own explosives unregulated as government, anything the government can own, the civilians shall own unrestricted, anything the civilians own unrestricted, the government shall own unrestricted. Everyone has a right to all weaponry unrestricted.
"Criminals are still civilians unless you are trying to reclassify them into something else."
A criminal who puts people's lives in danger has forfeit his right to live, he has no rights anymore, any means that will exterminate him and save lives without killing anyone else is acceptable, anyone who commits murder must die, anyone who commits rape must die, any justice system that fails to perform this act is evil and is inherently oppressive and hates human life.
"I also went on to explain how people like you intentionally look the other way when government abuses these things."
I don't, I call out said abuses, but keep telling yourself that. Not like it matters anyway because it an ad hominem and guilt by association fallacy anyway.
"Remember my comment about how many people government will need to genocide before folks like you even start to wake up?"
Your speaking fallaciously and other nonsense, I haven't bothered to consider most of what you've said because you didn't bother to consider any of what I've said and then made assumptions about me and my position. You saw "I don't mind the government having this capability" that you completely ignored the fact I had a designated if statement that clarified a standard that no modern government follows anyway.
"You are the quintessential "government worshiper" everything they do is okay so long as they "pinky swear" they won't use the power you idiotically give them except in "emergency" situations."
Again I never said this. Strawman fallacy. You didn't even bother to read what I wrote.
"Where government is concerned... YOU are their enemy, and you YOU keep giving them more power."
I haven't given them anything, the state and civilians should be equal in capacity for all acts, everything the state can own the civilians must be capable to own, anything the state can do, the civilians must be capable to do as well. Any state that prohibits this is inherently tyrannical and must be exterminated without remorse, (and all its actors must promptly be punished if they were involved) anyone who allows this promotes and supports tyranny. Anyone that allows the government to intervene in the lives of the individual is supporting tyranny. Any tyrant government must be destroyed, burned to the grown, and any society that supports such a government must be judged to suffer for their evil. If it is tyrannical government that will judge and kill them, then so be, they asked for it, but I'm not complicit in any of this.
"I wonder how long it will take before people like you are okay with the police calling in drone strikes on situations that are "emergencies""
If I have the capacity to use a drone as a weapon unregulated, I don't care if the government can do so as well.
"I am sure they will "pinky swear" to not abuse that one as well. But then again... maybe you like the idea of your fellow citizens being classified as enemies of the state if they vote the wrong way?"
Voting systems are tyrannical anyway, the whole concept of the social contract was a mythological and religious lie to enslave people anyhow. Only a king and his subordinates given this power can perform justice, those who are put in power by democracy can never perform justice for they either fear the people too much to ever use power or they grow an unmanageable corruption in secret, any republic or democracy that has corruption can not be fixed, the only fix for these corrupt democracies and republics is to burn them all down, and corruption like this is inevitable and appears in a very short term period, if a republic returns it will suffer the same fate, a republic can not last long because it has no power to eliminate corruption. Thus all republics and all democracies inherently tyrannical.
1
-
1
-
The Fediverse has a massive problem of bastards calling everyone they don't like racists, nazis, and fascists, and honestly its the most annoying crap, they did this stupid crap to Gab all because of its free speech principal, Fediverse morons are all anti-free-speech, like say what you will about mainstream social media, least you can say something controversial and not be immediately banned for "racism" all the time. Sure its not the same type of ban when your instance is defederated, but its still bullcrap that prevents outreach and just reinforces the problem of attracting bad actors and criminals, its no wonder the Fediverse is so full of CP, pedophiles, and other criminal bullcrap, I'm 80% sure they call them racist to protect their pedophilla trafficing rings.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lawrencedoliveiro9104 That's not how you define machine language, an instruction set does not by nature mean its machine code, (it could be, but doesn't mean it is) which is what we're referring to by machine language, in the case of Javascript, it does not sustain an intermediary bytecode and does not translate to native calls in any respect, it might inadvertently make them (though not in a browser because it has to be sandboxed in order to be secure and not leak the container, nodejs also tries to do this because chromium) but it does not make any direct translations to native calls. Also when you define something by calling it compiled, it has nothing to do with hardware or software, that's a misunderstanding of those terms, it has to do with instanced compilation or pre-compilation (which in most languages that become a true bytecode or the instruction set machine code is the latter as its considered generally more performant, however less flexible) which Javascript doesn't do either because it doesn't actually compile. (though in many respects you can treat the "JIT" concept in JS as if it is, however there are distinctions to this)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Edward G. Stone
"bro I think you're too concerned about "philosophy" and thus too detached from reality"
Its quite interesting that instead of actually combating what I say you assault nothing regarding the substance of my argument and instead make claims on my character. This is foremost defined as ad hominem attack and is fallacious, I have no need to even address this, but the basis is this, philosophy, methodology, they define worldview, which defines how you approach reality, everyone has one and if you don't adhere to a well defined one then you can't make reasonable claims nor decisions. Software is no different and to claim otherwise is foolishness, we have design patterns for this exact reason, except in that specific case its supposed to be a segregated tool you use in specific circumstance, (for which many people don't treat as tools and treat more as a cult in truth) Rust violates this principle and thus fails at a basic level at being well designed.
"to realize that we as developers have real problems to solve"
Rust is not unique in its capacity to solve said problems and you don't need a required package manager to do it, and a good philosophy would make you better and more capable to solve said problems. Rust is not the end all solution and treating it like it is unique on this is forming it more into a cult then treating it like a tool. And a tool which fails to adhere to decent principle.
"and having Cargo around is just helpful"
And having pacman is helpful, but guess what? I am not required to have pacman for my system to run, it makes my life easier but I can build my system without it, if I want to build on Linux using Boost, pacman (and aur package managers based on pacman) already has me covered, if I want to use Electron, pacman has me covered, if I need .NET, again I'm covered, Python, if not for the requirement of pip, it would also have me covered, especially if I use the aur. The fact of the matter is I like package managers, I don't like being required to use a specific one for my development environment, I have my own concerns and don't need my development environment breaking because I can't use a part of it that is not required to actually compile nor function, I don't need packages all the time, I can develop my own things for my system without them but I am not allowed this "privilege" on Rust as anything I do must include a functioning Cargo in order to accomplish anything. This is worthless, I don't need Cargo to compile anything but I'm not allowed to do that for no reason.
"it solves a real problem and is miles ahead what we're used to having with C++."
Worthless argument, already addressed, you don't get to perform whataboutism and misdirection just claim superiority, you still have no sustained an argument, you just make anecdotal claims almost religiously so without the consideration that there are people who aren't like you, why should I follow your system and mentality? Why should I subscribe to your requirements when I need none of them? Why should I be forced to be like everyone else when I and some like me and others perhaps not like me don't need what some others need but that everyone is required to equally have. I don't need everything Rust gives me, instead its unnecessary bloat, but I don't get a choice and I can't stop it. Why am I forced to live in such a condition where I get no choice over my own system? A better solution is to give me the tools I need and leave out the ones I don't languages and tools that do this are and will always be superior to those that don't and I will resent those who oppose this mentality as they don't bother to care about the needs of others.
If you need a problem solved with a tool, use the right tool, don't force me to buy the entire toolbox just so you can have the screwdriver in the toolbox, if I just need a hammer and you need a screwdriver, let us keep the toolbox separate from the tools so that the some that need the toolbox may take advantage of it separately, all I wish is for control over the toolbox for which Rust does not ever allow.
1
-
@BSenta
"he's not saying your a bad person. But saying you value your philosophy too much and it's not realistic."
You do not understand what ad hominem means by this, the claim of calling to question character and act instead of arguments is always by nature ad hominem fallacy regardless if I am or not called a "bad person" for which I had never a regard for. Do not misdirect the refutation of the fallacy. You both have shown complete and utter disregard for the argument as you instead resort to stating anecdotal claims (which I must add that anecdotes are neither proof nor evidence by rational argumentation, you can't use just personal experience alone to justify an argument) without it even being evidence and don't even make substance of your own claims just saying that it is and nothing more. That does not sustain an argument nor does it count as refutation. You neither addressed that which I have said and merely refuse to even point to a single thing I have said. Calling what I say unrealistic instead of addressing foremost what I say in its complete is at best a red herring in fallacy as it misdirects the argument away from any of my points to try and undermine my argument without address.
This aside I have also already addressed the reason and qualification for why philosophy is important and necessary most especially regarding principle design, it doesn't matter if something works when it fails to superior to previous solutions, Rust being superior to C in any regard does not mean Cargo is superior to any of the other package managers, in all ways its just as bad if not worse. It is the philosophy that defined methodology which makes worldview which defines reality as far as approached, a language is designed by philosophy alone, not by practicality, no pragmatism and solution do not devise a language for even your outlook of what a problem is and how to approach it are by nature philosophy itself. All things that define both the problem and solution as well as that which adheres to such things is in all manner and sense philosophy, this is why philosophy regarding the subject is important and why I say Rust has failed. It has not failed in accomplishing an aspect of a goal, its inherent philosophy is massively and foolishly flawed by the bloat its philosophy adheres to. (separate from its syntax which I say the philosophy of is also flawed but not for even remotely the same reasons and for which is not relevant to points here so I shall bring it up no further)
"If saying someone is idealistic is an attack on their character it's impossible to provide any kind of feedback."
It is because it focuses on the character and undermining of one's character to override their argument and not in any regard their argument. That is why its a fallacy. If your "argument" does not address the argument in either refutation or reinterpretation then it is fallacious and instead trying to disconnect the argument from rational bounds. It seeks instead to win the argument not by reason but by pleads to irrationality so as to silence the opposition, whether one realizes this is the case or not is your own discretion, but the fact reminds its point is to silence opposition, in this case the criticism regarding Rust's lack of decent modularity in its build system violating the king making principles of good FOSS.
1
-
@Edward G. Stone
"I just think we should be more realistic and less pedantic with these things."
Its neither pedantic nor lacking in realism, its a real solution that Rust failed thanks to its out philosophy on the subject.
"I wasn't attacking you."
Whether you intended or not, that's what your argumentation had done, calling what I say unrealistic wouldn't be an attack on me though it would be useless without good reason, but referring to me as being too philosophical and unrealistic is in fact an attack on character whether you realize it or not, referring to my outlooks, character, or such other personal things like philosophy and claiming I focus too much on them is in fact an attack on me and not a counter to my points, for I am not my points. That is why I called it ad hominem. I have nothing against countering and refuting what I say, (besides disagreement) but I will always take issue with coming onto me and pointing at my acts in an argument. If my acts had been actions that lack argumentation then criticism of me might be fine as it would be no argument, this is why I am willing to point such out your act to you in those statements, but I didn't justify my points nor undermine an argument by pointing to your character, whether you intended it or not however you in fact did this.
"But it's just impractical, sometimes adhering to the UNIX/FOSS philosophy just makes things harder to deal with for no real world
benefit."
Actually no, it makes things easier, so long as you make it well designed, it is no more difficult to implement then any design pattern, using one design pattern has only ever been a problem for example when you already devoted and dedicated an entire project to another design pattern, the same applies to this mentality. Look at the Godot game engine, it devises a near perfect modularity and not only is it easy to use, simple as can be, easy to review, and quite performant and cross-platform, but it also can function with much of the binary stripped so its super tiny, fast on startup, and quite customizable to use case. Its so tiny that you can use the full binary as a WASM file and it'll still be more compressed then even a good deal of websites. It also isn't a problem if part of the engine fails or doesn't work as modules of the engine can be stripped from the binary. Now granted this is an interesting case and perhaps even a bit extreme but its got a lot of recyclable code for its build system that its extremely easy to manage and change the build system and to even tell from the commandline to build without certain modules or to build in a certain way. Its not exactly the same since the modules and dependencies are (for the most part) compiled into the game engine in that case whereas in I would rather not expect such from a development environment. But all that said it demonstrates my point perfectly even though only mostly through in compilation. It is neither unrealistic nor pedantic even for a language for which it demonstrates as the engine is not strictly reliant even on its custom language being implemented and functioning in the engine.
"Imagine if Rust had 20 different build systems like C++."
Build systems and package managers aren't the same thing, truth be told I prefer multiple build systems for distinct purposes and competition, but I also don't mind in the least a reference implementation at least but it must be simple and the most barebones demonstrative implementation in my opinion. I don't think it really should be the languages obligation to provide you anything beyond that (nor should it be the full feature implementation, much like how pacman itself is simple or how wayland is a bare basic standard with a reference imlementation) because otherwise you also lack competition and resolution to the standard. If the standard is well defined this doesn't become an issue and one metric will tend to rise to the top, in this case for C and C++ for a long while it was makefiles and then CMake. I would prefer to have something a bit less jank but as of now we have so many competing systems that I like having options for any problem. When someone thinks they have a singular qualified standard for everyone, and even further basically prohibits anyone from doing their own, that's when I have a problem.
"Yeah, sure, you said it's "whataboutism", but that's how it's always been."
That's not an excuse, my point stands whether C++ exists or not.
"Rust is supposed so be a step-up from C++, and it's supposed to solve
the problems we currently have as C++ developers, it's not meant to be
perfect, not is it meant to be a silver bullet."
Which I take issue with because it still fails on metrics where C++ and even C do better, biggest being those dependency issues. And it doesn't help when everyone acts like it is perfect and a silver bullet, I've criticized Rust often as I take many issues with it, as I do with a lot of C and C++ alternatives as I find they all fail to capture much of the justifications around those languages and focus exclusively on safety and security as if its the only thing that matters. I would not mind those as parts either but when that becomes the core of your argument regarding C and C++ and not addressing either all the many other things C and C++ do right or wrong, it annoys me that all the alternatives do almost the exact same thing, none of them try to resolve the issues in different ways as if they live all in an echo chamber, there becomes little difference nor justification to use the other languages including Rust because they all become the exact same tool with even the difference between syntax become small and minor, only being major when comparing its changes from ALGOL to C to C++. I don't see any of said languages serving a unique purpose.
"Once Rust becomes mainstream, another language will come to try and
solve its problems as well,"
If, Rust's not demonstrated to have mainstream appeal beyond a small subset of converters to it (especially with how vital C and C++ are to low level work) and truth be told it still doesn't retain the power of C++ nor the modularity of its build. This has tended in every case to reduce the effectiveness and usefulness of development software in every case. Let alone the general use case of software, it definitely harms its receptiveness, that being aside the religious claim that such a thing really is. Personally I don't hope for Rust, and I don't ever want to as I despise it.
"and the cycle continues, because reality
beats philosophy."
See this isn't proven, in fact the opposite is quite often proven and beyond these "unrealistic" philosophies are reality, they make and sustain reality, the only way to know and perceive reality is by said philosophies but your ignorance and arrogance regarding separating reality from what you think will make solutions more impossible, to deny them is to be delusional, you have one, I have one, the Rust devs have one, if we do not approach it from the perspective of actually caring about them and resolving them in ways that actually make sense and reduce our work then we won't make solutions, we're at best just creating useless duplication of work and wasting our time, which already happened with a lot of C/C++ alternative languages to some extent, they all do the same thing and none of them show themselves to be better then each other. And none of them have the power of C++. I would love a C++ alternative that doesn't at least throw C++ entirely out with the bathwater but it seems that too has become totally wishful thinking because apparently everyone wants to kill C and C++ without understanding why they are so good and useful.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pillmuncher67 Your countries will burn, you are killing the world with your babied lives of sheltered bullcrap and hedonistic worthlessness and trying to drag everyone down with you into hell. Its not for the government to decide standards nor the market, its not the job of the government to interfere in business, they were never given this right, they took it tyrannically and it will kill people cause famine like socialism always does. Monopolies are only made at the behest of governments because they are the monopoly that enforces all monopolies to exist, ironic how everyone hates "monopolies" but only so long as its not the one that both has the power to kill you and actively exterminates life, hypocritically claiming to love life by said extermination, at will and uses its power to assault the common man in all walks of life. Corporatism is literal syndicalism, as in it is Marxist Socialism in play, which is only enforced and exists at the behest only of government which all of Europe has a beloved obsession thanks to their weak societies and people. Their interference in the market creates monopolies, government can't create value, they can't and don't compete in the market, and only rob those who do in order to provide for those who are at the top of the market who have bribes and more power waiting for the existing powers to use, its a repeating cycle, they are kings without a title so they don't need to be held responsible, they claim to harm them in one hand and then use them to benefit themselves in the other, its hypocrisy. You don't get to complain about data collection and then use the methods, infrastructure, and designs they made for you in order to do the same thing and act all innocent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ultra289
"Ahmm browsing on Windows isnt rly that slow even on crappy pcs/laptops, so no incentive for those "normies" to switch to Linux"
Average from my experience is around 30-40% difference for native programs, (in terms of performance) and that's discounting any registry screwups that are very common in Windows applications. The memory usage is generally down at least 50% if you really try. (say with one of the less hungry window managers like xfce and disable compositing, ect.) The drive access is actually way better and generally faster specifically because ext4 doesn't really fragment (least of all in a way that needs to be corrected every so often, its self-correcting) and there are plenty of little things you can do for Linux to squeeze out extra performance at the OS runtime before you try doing something you can't do as a normie. (much of which is literally one Google search away) Windows is incredibly slow and bloated inherently, one of the problems with it being that the window manager is handled on integral system threads, which means it interrupts you when reading inputs, which if you've ever been on a 4 or 8 gigs of ram with a 4 core 3 ghz CPU, you notice when none of your inputs go through while using Chrome. (or in being excessively delayed) That problem doesn't crop up in Linux, there is a different issue that can happen if you use up the CPU and memory you've got, and eventually your inputs will hang, but it won't be your window manager causing it when you're not using up even 50% of your system resources. Nobody I know hasn't had that problem when using Windows, but I've yet to see anyone get it on Linux.
"Gaming on Windows is objectively better, yeah compatibility for Linux games have improved but the fps arent higher (even on native ports...) which is something to rly consider when you have a slow pc..."
Eh, not really, if anything they're objectively the same, as Linux performance for non-native games (Proton and Wine) still tends to be superior to Windows on supported games and in many cases non-supported games. (its only when the game does uncommon graphical calls, usually in unconventional ways, in DirectX that you tend to see massive issues, [aside from DirectX12 specific things] only alternative is special driver calls, which are being improved in the Linux Kernel making that problem all but disappear, or deliberately search for ring 0 with DRM or anti-cheat, which are being worked on as well and may actually be fixed within a year or two) Native ports however are way superior than the Windows version so long as the game in question was already using OpenGL or Vulkan as it render API, which given basically every engine defaults to, there are very few cases where that doesn't happen. With CSGO for example, I get less system frame latency and more responsive inputs while using Linux, alongside having a higher frame count overall. The only games I know that suffer as a "native port" (which I'm just gonna say, calling them a "native port" is a damn lie and you know it, a native port does not run with a emulation suite overtop of it just to fake being run on Window from Linux) are those which were only DirectX and never had devoted developers actually port the game to OpenGL/Vulkan and Linux, outsourcing it to some other group. Arma 3 is a good example of that, even though they abandoned it like a year and a half ago. Under those cases however, its straight better to just use Proton or Wine in those cases anyway, you get more performance, and Windows only functionality, like running dynamic libraries built for Windows-only, doesn't get hampered as a result. Not to mention that you're more likely to find a problem that can be solved by Google using Proton/Wine with those type of games then by running them natively.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree with the bloat problem, but dear God why does everything have to be rust, its such an annoying language, some ideas are nice, but why couldn't someone just make a C++-like language with the nice features of rust, postfix type specifiers, traits, and generics are so annoying in Rust. (Generics are also a dumb solution to the C++ template error problem, concepts are an old id, only Java really has an excuse to use generics, just make a more robust version of that)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Agreed, government can't fix the problem government created, the entire reason monopolies can fundamentally exist is at behest of the government, not the market. They have no market reliance and can subvert all market forces by relying and performing backdeals with the governing authorities. (and even without the deals they can simply coast on government money) Tax credits, tax breaks, subsidies, regulations, legal code, they all decrease reliance on market forces immensely (and increase the barrier to entry for newcomers reducing competition) to the point that they aren't all that impacted by market forces as long as the tax money is pulled in. Government money doesn't compete, its given for mere existence and claims, (when you didn't earn the money, you have no obligation to spend it well) as a result those who can most legally demonstrate their claims wins the biggest cut. (and a few bribes can always buy you the rest) That's not to mention the assistance that government agencies give to those companies that gives them a political and economic edge over the competition further reducing their reliance on the market. A clear sign of a manipulated market is lack of competition despite poor treatment. This applies to all fields.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thomasgebert6119 Functionally any text modification behavior in a text editor can just as much be implemented as regex (specifically regex that supports position groups) and it'll be way more consistent of hitting the target over replicating behaviors that can fail because of incorrect targeting. If you really need anything more complex you shouldn't be relying on a text editor, if you have to avoid redrawing the text and merely want to process it, sticking to a text editor is stupid, bloat, and slow, relying on sed, grep, and other GNU programs will always be superior to anything Vim can do, better and more portable and reasonable then at that point to learn the Unix commands. Any program that does more then its supposed to for the sake of tiny niches instead of relying on the more sophisticated consistent behaviors is bloating both the binary and execution and aside from teaching bad habits, its also duplicating work poorly, by the time it can duplicate existing work it wasted its time trying to overcome something that's already intrinsically superior, better to rely on programs whose job it is to modify the text performantly and natively then ones that aren't native and by default will perform redraws. I don't touch python, I avoid it like the plague, I've only ever relied upon regex and GNU. (and only ever relied on bash-like behavior once to do anything similar, and that was a scrubbing web pages for download links and then forcibly downloading the files to a local drive, which isn't all that much similar after the web page scrubbing and it relied on curl anyway)
1
-
@thomasgebert6119
"it’s not an either-or situation."
For software engineering it is, its a violation of KISS for multiple reasons. It also violates the Unix philosophy. And that's just on the surface, it also violates plenty of other reasonable philosophies that produce superior software. Every moment you spend developing and maintaining one thing means to detract from developing and maintaining another and requires other resources to otherwise do. And why waste time doing that when there is something better that you can't compete with. Even more why not contribute to that thing instead? If it could compete with it maybe I'd consider the competition, but it can't and fails to relate even closely to the other solutions.
"You can (and should) learn several text processing techniques;"
There is no reason to unless they were competing, which they are not, sed and awk are objectively superior for every instance for which regex isn't suited for text processing, and for scripting a shell script is itself superior. There is no reason to have multiple techniques when there are superior less bloated and consistent manners to get the same results with better performance.
"knowing how to use vim macros is useful for some situations,"
In what case can any of the named systems not cover in a much superior, simpler, and more performant manner. Even in the case of being lazy, find and replace is simple, regex, then sed, awk, and then bash/fish/zsh. (or if you are feeling really experimental oil shell)
"learning how to use sed and awk is useful for others."
sed and awk are more portable and aren't editor specific, and if the editor supports calling to the terminal there isn't even an excuse to rely on terminal specific behavior.
"Also, you are simply incorrect in saying that you can do anything that macros can do with regex."
You completely ignored what I said. I said for anything for which is simple text processing, like that demonstrated in the video, regex will literally do it for you, for anything more then that, the GNU toolset already does it better and more efficiently, they've been specially optimized for that purpose.
"Macros are slow, but infinitely flexible."
So is bash, sed, and awk, macros are useless in the face of all the other toolsets, they don't do anything not done better and easier with other tools.
"I get the impression that you’ve never actually used vim seriously."
I don't rely on my text editor doing things for me, I have never once consistently used any specific editor and I don't have reason to, I rely on using the right, easiest, and fastest tools for the job for which doesn't require me to install anything more, for simple things I'll use my text editor's find and replace or regex functionality, for anything more, I'll rely on sed and awk, and for anything beyond that I need absolute control over the results anyway and will just write a script in bash/fish. I have never had a reason to bother with engaging with vim because Unix provides all the superior and easier to use text processing capabilities I need where I also can control and guide the outcome without fail. And all without costing me performance or excessive memory usage.
1
-
1
-
@big-t2060 First off it is a language problem because the privacy and security concerns of the browser spawned as a result of the desire to build a dynamic web without contemplation of what type of exploits that would allow nor any capability to counteract those exploits. Without Javascript on the browser, the exploits to the system are nearly non-existent and you would have nearly no privacy concerns by daily use. WASM can correct a bit of it, but I never said it would fix this problem, I didn't even imply, I just said we should've replaced JS before WASM which you assumed I said something I never did.
This aside its clearly not a platform problem simply because pretty much every exploit being active on the client-side is Javascript specific. (there being very rare browser specific exploits anymore) And the protocol doesn't make a difference here since you could use the most secure protocol and still be exposed with Javascript. This is a Javscript problem before anything else. (also complaining about DNS "exploits" are stupid, your metric for what is relevant as an exploit is dumb, there is no such thing as perfect security nor privacy on the internet, good opsec behavior just calls it good enough, even in the most perfect developments you would never have this, that's called living in a fantasy)
The specific problems you brought up by the way are not relevant to the video, this video talks about exploits in relation to JS, nearly nothing in the video refers to things you can do outside JS, and even then it will commonly be with JS regardless.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1