Re:“Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of ...
by pjmlp on Sunday October 02, 2022 @02:12PM
(#33058606)
And back then we had flamewars on comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++, hence the .moderated versions of them.
I always been on the C++ side, when arguing on C vs C++ since 1993, already considered C a primitive option, coming from Turbo Pascal 6.0, and finding such a simplistic pseudo-macro assembler.
So yeah, in a sense the Rust community is similarly hyped as we were adopting Turbo Vision, CSet++, OWL, MFC, PowerPlant, Tools.h++, POET, and thinking C would slowly fade away, and we could just keep on using a language that while compatible with C, offered the necessary type system improvements for safer code.
But then the FOSS movement doubled down on C as means to write the GNU ecosystem, on the first editions of the GNU manifesto, and here we are.
I always been on the C++ side, when arguing on C vs C++ since 1993, already considered C a primitive option, coming from Turbo Pascal 6.0, and finding such a simplistic pseudo-macro assembler.
So yeah, in a sense the Rust community is similarly hyped as we were adopting Turbo Vision, CSet++, OWL, MFC, PowerPlant, Tools.h++, POET, and thinking C would slowly fade away, and we could just keep on using a language that while compatible with C, offered the necessary type system improvements for safer code.
But then the FOSS movement doubled down on C as means to write the GNU ecosystem, on the first editions of the GNU manifesto, and here we are.