Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Brodie Robertson"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@diadetediotedio6918
"I think you're hyper-reacting to something that just underlined the things you said."
Claim without proof and it lacks reason. It also is an ad hominem fallacy.
"See, it's a principle of rationality that you should keep your biases away from your concrete judgments"
No one can do this and neither should they try, reality, reason, truth, and facts are all inherently biased and to believe anyone or anything is capable of being without bias is also an invalid perspective. There is nothing that informs this belief except ignorance or arrogance and you can't even prove it true, in fact its easier to prove that everything is inherently and necessarily biased then it is to prove otherwise. For otherwise there would be distinguishing nor classifying factors behind anything. Also this is still not an argument.
"in that sense I manage not to hate or love any language and still recognize its strengths and weaknesses."
If you believe that my hatred of a language informs that I believe that the language must not exist or be used by anyone instead suggests delusion and arrogance. You clearly didn't bother to read what I say, you read what you want out of what I say and ignore what I actually have said. You care nothing for my position, you just want to put me down for why else would you raise yourself to a superior position and present no reason? Why are you even speaking in regards to opinion when I have explicitly stated that my opinion is not what's informing my opposition to the Rust community. You have still yet to even speak about that refuse to even address what I've said. You don't get to make claims of my character and claim yourself superior. That is inherently self-righteousness, a biased position. You also have not given one good reason not to have a negative disposition towards a tool that you find innately and inherently flawed and problematic most especially for the purpose it claims to be for. My position of disposition behind the language is not informed either by opinion but thing is I never presented it because I did not find it relevant. Why then however do you assume you know what I have said when I have never spoken it to you? You don't get to make those assumptions and then also assume you are right by a strawman fallacy?
"I don't even consider myself a "Rust programmer", nor a member of the "Rust community", but look at how you've acted, in complete dismay, based on your assumptions."
You attacked and assumed of me and then made ad hominems character attacks and strawman fallacies for positions I never presented, ignoring what I have said to support a position that was never argued in regards to. I have a disposition towards the language, nothing about that speaks to me being irrational, I never even presented you a reason for issues and neither have you addressed them, I have been fairly vague and/or light in all my criticisms regarding Rust because they were not the core of my issue regarding the Rust community, who has done just the same thing you just did. I don't care about your opinion of me and I don't care about your fallacies regarding me. Neither do I care for my own opinions, I care for the facts and truth for which you presented none of and merely assumed upon me for.
"You basically called an experienced driver programmer a fanatic"
You're the one who acted upon me, I will call those who act in a manner not by reason what they are according to their act, you didn't use a well reasoned argument to refute me, you made assumptions of me, and then used that you make yourself look better. You have presented yourself a fanatic and thus were referred to by what you have done. Experience does not exclude fanaticism, why you act like they're mutually exclusive either speaks to lack of understanding or delusion. In either case it does not speak well of what you've done. I don't care for your character but your behavior I will criticize, never once have I said something that isn't the result of your behavior, act better and I won't say anything regarding behavior, act poorly and I will criticize, its quite a simple metric.
"and you said you would disregard her opinion if she recognized the "flaws"."
First off, sounds like a typo, I said I would disregard her opinion regarding Rust if she would not recognize the flaws. How does that say that I hate the language to the degree you accuse me of? I hate the language informed by its flaws but if one doesn't recognize flaws in a language how then can they be trusted to be truthful, honest, and worth listening to? If one says C is the best thing ever and it has no flaws, would you suggest that I should consider their opinions more then those who see the flaws? For this is what I say of Rust folks, but for them they do this with Rust. When I speak of Rust flaws, they accuse me of things and attack my character and refuse to acknowledge what I say. Closest someone ever came was saying "yes but" which isn't an acknowledgement but a defensive mechanism. Now if someone does this, why then should I regard them? Do you believe that I like and use C and C++ because I think they have no flaws? Do you truly think I don't recognize that Rust solves some of them even? If you believe that of me then I must call you delusional, in the least your behavior makes that implication of how you think of me which itself is both irrationally and was never stated. Do you believe that I am unaware of C memory management being a pain that assists the creation of bugs? If no then why have you accused me of all these things that I haven't said nor have I made a support of? The only reasonable expectation of your position is that you do believe that I think such a way but as to why I don't know and truthfully I don't care.
"And finally, you said you despise language."
I also despise murder and murderers, do you suggest I should have no reasonable argument towards murder then? Would you make the argument that only people who care nothing for murder speak regarding murder? If the answer is no you have refuted your own argument as rational argumentation does not in essence require lack of a disposition, there is no reason to assume this except to attack someone's character and disregard their argument. In essence it is a deflection tactic and always an ad hominem fallacy.
"Do you want people to get what you say if you say it in such an emotionally unstable way?"
Foremost I don't care about what people do, think, or believe, most especially about me. I don't matter and nothing about me should matter. If I do matter then you have lost the plot and can't sustain an argument in the first place. Regard for character over argument means the opposing argument should not be considered because it inherently can not be a valid argument. (that does not mean the argument is incorrect or correct on either side, but the side that doesn't use a fallacy is more trustworthy by inherent position of the lack of a fallacy until presented with a proper refutation)
And emotionally unstable how? If someone refuses flaws to something that must inherently have flaws, their position is inherently invalid enough to put anything they say into question. That's not an unstable position by any regard, it is entirely rational to ignore a position not informed by truth but by blindness if one does not keep themselves under reasonable expectation of the world.
1
-
@mmstick
"Rust is in an all new class of its own, and we have yet to see any projects seriously challenging it."
It is this exact mentality why I do not consider the perspective of fanatics.
"Go ahead and name a language that has all of"
Why should I? This is a deflection, just because a language would have any features does not mean its a good language, a language is not a pure sum of its features and to think otherwise is say the least foolishness. You can list language features all you want, there are plenty of languages that share and implement many, most, if not all of these features in some manner, and to claim that Rust is so great because it has these features, ignoring the languages that do or may also have them by literally disregarding the capacity to be wrong religiously so, and yet it lacks many other very "vital" features to some degree or another, ("vital" I may add that neither would I consider vital but what others may call vital) not that most of these are specifically vital even for its objective, in the best of cases many of these are conveniences and nowhere near what makes even a decent language, some of them I would even argue detract from the language. For example, functional and imperative programming are no more special then any other paradigm, in fact I would suggest they are often push developers into a negative space as they override the mechanics of the language to force one singular paradigm of solutions, which Rust most certainly does, no doubt in part thanks to such behaviors. (and no that is not me saying I despise such, it is me saying they are at best serve a limited purpose that limits both use and capacity, often I would say for little gain from a programming perspective, they're nice optional features, they're terrible required features and they often uselessly add development oversights and undue complexity)
It is the sign of a fool that believes he is right by answering an address of "nothing compares" as if that's actually true. You don't know every language and neither do you know even a subset of a modicum of languages that service the same purpose as Rust, let alone C. Only a foolish argument will stand on a blanket and absolute claim as "nothing compares, its in completely different class compared to the others". And which yes, C will by necessity have more general use then Rust because Rust exclusively focuses on one subset of use cases regarding C to the exclusion of other purposes, that's how tradeoffs must reasonably and rationally work, and every language feature you add increases your tradeoffs and thus your specialization. For every feature you add, complexity is increased, and for each bit of complexity not only is there more to go wrong, but there is more to learn and understand, and if those underpinning systems, which Rust has a lot of, are not so well understood, there will still be more bugs introduced by developers and more non-solvable problems for which developers will have to deal with.
I didn't even need to argue anything about what you said for you made a blanket statement, and I have no reason to consider your arguments when you don't make a single one. Instead of arguing against what I have said, you go right into defensive child mode just short of explicitly stating "its better" as though that justifies the acts and the behaviors of developers of Rust and their willingness to completely disregard any criticism of the language. If one can not recognize any flaws in a system, they do not love it, they idolize it, love is not blind, for love seeks for truth, it is idolatry and blind worship for which one will refuse to acknowledge flaws and attack the character of its opposition. This is why I call it a religion. Can't even stand to hear someone telling you it has flaws, gotta defend your zealousness with childish intent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@billeterk My issue is that if you critique Rust at all, like I've critiqued the build system and syntax quite deliberately and specifically a good few times now, they neither will ever accept it nor refute it reasonably, every time I've done it I was insulted and attacked for it without any refutation to what I actually said. I've been accused of not knowing anything, of being ignorant, and told I'm wrong and should be ignored without a refutation. It is for this reason more then any other I hate the Rust community. I don't like Rust and would never intend to use it, I do hate both its build system and syntax, but I would never have been so angrily opposed to it if not for this toxic fanaticism I've always experienced regarding it. And just to clarify, I have not ever gone out of my way to make these criticisms, I've made those comments in places where ever an independent topic of Rust came up, I never intentionally antagonized the community but every time I would end up attacked by Rust folks anyway, it is for this reason I see the Rust community as childish and full of children who shouldn't be left near Kernel development, partly out of spite, but only that for some reason this trendy new language attracts the exact people I don't want to see developing a kernel driver.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This dude sounds like he's drinking the kool-aid of woke ideology, like Stallman is his own brand of whatever, (I don't want him gone though) but oh god if we're gonna go with the affirmative action bullcrap, I would goddman hope for the FSF to burn to the ground and die, I've seen this with DnD, Gaming, Anime Dubs, and Hollywood, we've already witnessed a few stupid cases of wokeness infecting FOSS projects, they've already tried to step into the Linux project and they already got to the Rust Foundation, (I may have always hated Rust, but I was at least willing to consider it before that) I get enough of this shit from corporations shoving it down my throat, for God's sake, keep this crap out, woke ideology needs to be gatekeeped out of everywhere and everyone who goes in with woke ideology needs to be shamed out of business, I'm sick and tired of this parasite robbing everything that's fun or good.
Even if I agree with elements of a goal I will not let my enemy win just to spite and shame him. Whether I agree or not has already been lost, I will not give anyone with this mentality an inch, I will never compromise with them, I don't respect them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tinrab I have numerous criticisms of Rust as a language and infrastructure that absolutely makes it a failure of a language, like for example the lack of ABI stability and the inability to support shared linkage, in fact you can't distribute Rust programs as linkable libraries at all because of that ABI stability problem, (as in any linkable libraries within Rust, you can load them from C/C++ because it doesn't rely upon the Rust stdlib and vice versa, but that's not useful for a new language, also its an open and so far reported by the devs as an impossible problem to solve) or how Cargo is a requirement to use Rust, or how the borrow checker syntax is absolutely trash, or how postfix type declarations ar a dumb design. I could go on and on about how Rust is not actually superior in all sorts of ways, but I can bet you that you won't admit to a single of these problems. If you can't see any of those as problems, then you're the cultists, as a C/C++ developer these are only some of the many reasons I can't use Rust at all, so to tout it as superior is a completely joke. The Circle Compiler has already proven C++ can support a borrow checker and there is already a proposal to add it to C++.
1
-
@tinrab I have numerous criticisms of Rust as a language and infrastructure that absolutely makes it a failure of a language, like for example the lack of ABI stability and the inability to support shared linkage, in fact you can't distribute Rust programs as linkable libraries at all because of that ABI stability problem, (as in any linkable libraries within Rust, you can load them from C/C++ because it doesn't rely upon the Rust stdlib and vice versa) or how Cargo is a requirement to use Rust, or how the borrow checker syntax is absolutely trash, or how postfix type declarations ar a dumb design. I could go on and on about how Rust is not actually superior in all sorts of ways, but I can bet you that you won't admit to a single of these problems. If you can't see any of those as problems, then you're the cultists, as a C/C++ developer these are only some of the many reasons I can't use Rust at all, so to tout it as superior is a completely joke. The Circle Compiler has already proven C++ can support a borrow checker and there is already a proposal to add it to C++.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mmstick No it doesn't, C++ supports dynamic linkage regardless of compiler versions, I can link a GCC 7 compiled library against a Clang 17 compiled project and vice versa. (done this plenty of times, never had an issue) Even for MSVC, if I disable the annoying non-standard debug features, I can do the same even from mingw or clang-cl. (MSVC is annoying because it violates the standard, it is still able to do it, its mostly a library issue, if your mingw pulls from the same library as MSVC, or is freestanding it does pretty much work) So long as it compiles on the same platform, conflicts just come down to referencing the wrong or different libraries. You clearly don't have much if even any experience in C++. Have you actually ever even used it? Also doesn't apply at all to C.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gusvanwes6192 Call it whatever you want, I don't care, the facts are true, I've experienced enough of the cultists, you can lie all you want, I don't care, doesn't refute the facts. I know all sorts of programming languages, I do know a bit of Rust, and hate the language as a result, but doesn't matter, all because I despise the Rust community for their harassment of anyone who doesn't agree with them, you accuse me of being a cultist, its not like I can't recognize the issues with C and C++ and recite them routinely for you, or that I could perhaps recognize that Rust has good ideas done poorly, no it must not be based on truth, but purely based on some random's delusions in his head that I hate and am part of a cult, it couldn't be that what I said about Rust fanbois is true.
1
-
@mmstick
"No one is pushing you to do anything."
Then you have no experience in software development.
"You are simply making up excuses to be part of a hateful bandwagon of people who are afraid of Rust."
There's literally no reason to be afraid of Rust, there are things it can't do compared to C/C++ and it will simply fail to replace either even just off those reasons alone, (there are other reasons too, but why bother with you) you claiming that those cases don't matter is pure ignorance, I need them for my work, so none of my work and associates are even able to use it even if we wanted to. My disposition for the language is completely academic and logistical, the community is its own realm of nasty bigots.
"Your choice of language speaks for itself. I know what corner of the Internet you hang out on."
And as you just demonstrated, outright bigotry. I literally don't care what language you use, I don't care what choices you make, use Rust if you want, just don't tell me to use it when I neither can nor want to. I literally could not care less of anything in regards to Rust, I actually happen to find some of its ideas neat and useful, but that doesn't excuse all the other crap I have to deal with because it merely exists. Rust developers are never willing to hear any criticism and attack literally everyone that points them out. I could name for you a million C/C++ problems, I don't believe the language is perfect, but it is still better then the alternatives that exist. The only potential replacement for C is C3 which is still in alpha.
1
-
@mmstick
"No one is pushing you to do anything."
Then you have no experience in software development.
"You are simply making up excuses to be part of a hateful bandwagon of people who are afraid of Rust."
There's literally no reason to be afraid of Rust, there are things it can't do compared to C/C++ and it will simply fail to replace either even just off those reasons alone, (there are other reasons too, but why bother with you) you claiming that those cases don't matter is pure ignorance, I need them for my work, so none of my work and associates are even able to use it even if we wanted to. My disposition for the language is completely academic and logistical, the community is its own realm of nasty bigots.
"Your choice of language speaks for itself. I know what corner of the Internet you hang out on."
And as you just demonstrated, outright bigotry. I literally don't care what language you use, I don't care what choices you make, use Rust if you want, just don't tell me to use it when I neither can nor want to. I literally could not care less of anything in regards to Rust, I actually happen to find some of its ideas neat and useful, but that doesn't excuse all the other crap I have to deal with because it merely exists. Rust developers are never willing to hear any criticism and attack literally everyone that points them out. I could name for you a million C/C++ problems, I don't believe the language is perfect.
1
-
@mmstick
Then you have no experience in software development.
"You are simply making up excuses to be part of a hateful bandwagon of people who are afraid of Rust."
There's literally no reason to be afraid of Rust, there are things it can't do compared to C/C++ and it will simply fail to replace either even just off those reasons alone, you claiming that those cases don't matter is pure ignorance, I need them for my work, so none of my work nor associates are even able to use it even if we wanted to. My disposition for the language is completely academic and logistical, the community is its own realm of nasty bigots.
"Your choice of language speaks for itself. I know what corner of the Internet you hang out on."
And as you just demonstrated, bigotry. I literally don't care what language you use, I don't care what choices you make, use Rust if you want, just don't tell me to use it when I neither can nor want to. I literally could not care less of anything in regards to Rust, I actually happen to find some of its ideas neat and useful, but that doesn't excuse all the other crap I have to deal with because it merely exists. Rust developers are never willing to hear any criticism and attack literally everyone that points them out. I could name for you a million C/C++ problems, neither of them are perfect.
1
-
@mmstick Then you have no experience in software development.
There's literally no reason to be afraid of Rust, there are things it can't do compared to C/C++ and it will simply fail to replace either even just off those reasons alone, you claiming that those cases don't matter is pure ignorance, I need them for my work. My disposition for the language is completely academic and logistical, the community is full of bigots.
"Your choice of language speaks for itself. I know what corner of the Internet you hang out on."
And as you just demonstrated, bigotry. I literally don't care, I don't care what choices you make, use Rust or don't, just don't tell me to use it when I neither can nor want to. I literally could not care less of anything in regards to Rust, I happen to find some of its ideas neat and useful, but that doesn't excuse all the other stuff because it merely exists. Rust developers are never willing to hear any criticism. I could name for you a million C/C++ problems, neither of them are perfect.
1
-
1
-
@dirlrido2522 One dude keeps responding back to me bashing me for making a milquetoast criticism of Rust, he didn't even bother to actually respond to the comment on this thread in the first place, I'm only in two comment threads on this video, and one of them is my own puny comment, and its the same guy responding to me in both threads most of the time, I only respond when I get the notification for someone whose tagging me. And I only posted because what I said was simple fact, I've never heard worse insults in software development then from Rust nuts, and just because you only have positive things to say does not inherently mean your position is valid, nobody even bothers to address the KDE side of this post because Rust fans are obsessed. No one bother to notice I said literally the same thing about the KDE antis here, I associated them together in this case. I also made a point that many complaints regarding Gnome that isn't on its management tend to be overblown, this comment was about more then just Rust. Also how am I bashing random users? They all responded to me by calling me a cultist first, I only called those specific people cultists afterwards. I don't see how having a problem with Rust cultism is bashing random users.
1
-
@dirlrido2522 I literally am only in two threads here, I literally haven't joined any others here, and I only posted this comment and posted one comment responding to someone complaining about C elitism where all I said was I've seen more vitriol from Rust fanbois. That was it, literally everything else since has been me responding to people tagging me, often when they first called me names, like the dude who randomly joined this thread, I attacked literally no one, I aggressed no one, I didn't attack Rust users in general, I didn't even particularly attack Rust. (even if you consider the criticisms I did make an attack on Rust, I didn't even say anything about them until after people insisted that I was a C cultist, in which Rust became the core topic) How am I being the aggressor? I didn't even start calling anyone outright Rust cultists until after I was called a C cultist. And of the people who didn't attack me, I haven't said anything negative to them at all despite them pointing out something related to Rust. I even openly stated I think some of the ideas of Rust are neat but that I despise the implementation. Am I not allowed to post comments on Youtube that just happen to include my experiences of the Rust nuts? This comment wasn't even focused on Rust, it was the Rust nut that turned it into that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1