>andreas kling took a puff from the rust crack pipe
sepple sisters..
how did we lose him so?
Andreas kling took a puff from the rust crack pipe
Bentley Sullivan
Other urls found in this thread:
twitter.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
Mason Walker
Anyone that has any real experience with C++ and then uses Rust understands why Rust is better.
Brandon Moore
>return SoiJaktInternal::
Lincoln Murphy
He's using Rust to transpile his own language to C++, right?
If it works it works but man
Parker Hughes
i have tons of real C++ experience, and thats why i know that rust is a solution for problems that dont exist, which brings even more problems with it and is useless in the real world
Oliver Sanchez
What are the non-existent problems that it solves?
Nolan Parker
C++ would be alright if the defaults weren't so retarded. By default shit should be save and if you have to do unsafe stuff it should require some verbosity syntax wise. Want uninitialised variables, make it explizit. Want signed integer overflow to be ub, make it explizit. Want object slicing, explizit. Non bounds checked arrays, explizit. Want any of the other billion ub stuff, explizit. Brains just don't work well with all those traps and people will fuck those things up that could easily be prevented or at least contained to few places in the code.
Dylan Reyes
I would be the first person to wrap the whole codebase in u safe. I know what I'm doing.
Cooper Taylor
Rust is what C++ should have become.
I have not seen a single valid technical argument against rust except for memes and shitposts.
Matthew Hill
Languages clearly need more verbose boiler-plate. Nothing makes people think harder and more clearly about a complex problem like having to wade thru a bunch of verbiage.
William Collins
>I have not seen a single valid technical argument against rust
- Slow compilation.
- Shared ownership and cyclical data are hard to work with.
- It's underspecified what's allowed in unsafe code.
- Immature ecosystem.
- Creating new error types is tedious, and errors don't have tracebacks.
- Macros can't inspect types, limiting their utility and encouraging fragile assumptions about names.
- Some useful things can't be abstracted over. You may have to write the exact same code twice for immutable and for mutable references. (Workarounds like macros and crazy type system tricks are a pain.)
- Some parts of it are still missing. Fallible allocation is primitive, const generics can't use most features, specialization is unstable. They're being worked on but they haven't arrived yet.
It's my favorite language by the way.
Nathaniel Walker
He's also porting the serenity browser to linux
twitter.com
Asher James
>slow compilation
yeah because C++ compiles fast
agree with the rest though
Anthony Foster
>gimmick project
>gimmick language
>gimmick editor
Wow amazing
Grayson Parker
>Shared ownership
maybe
Ethan Mitchell
Common Lisp is the only language that's allowed to have a truly powerful macro-definition facility. I don't know why other languages even bother. They just manage to fuck it up (including other Lisps).
Aaron Sullivan
What's wrong with the way other lisps do it?
Ian Long
It does actually, compared to Rust...
Brody Robinson
it already compiles for linux i've tried it it's just it doesn't have graphical output
Daniel Martinez
John Young
seething
Leo Thomas
>I know what I'm do**SEGFAULT**