bcjdjsndon
Rustaeceans often play this card... What you should really say is safe rust achieves it through syntax, yet as a systems language you will need to invoke unsafe rust, which by definition is not "memory safe". And memory unsafe is bad right? So bad it's worth changing the language to avoid it.... Yet rust doesnt avoid it?
I'm just not as impressed by that as you are
Apart from when that tool is a memory unsafe language though...
Isn't rust as a replacement to c one of the central selling points of rust? Ie the tool is crap because people are misusing it
Rust was an attempt to have the compiler manage memory, but they couldn't crack it, so they had to just push all the failures to conquer c style UB under rusts unsafe keyword...
Good codebases already do what rust is doing with the borrow checker, it's not rocket science.
There's a serious argument for cherry picking rusts good parts and Retrofitting them into a more entrenched language.
1. And? The unsafe code could still be memory unsafe
2. But coders can't be trusted to manually manage memory, otherwise you'd just use c++ right? Doesn't matter whether it's marked unsafe or not, you could do that on c code.
3. Not in unsafe rust, that's my whole point. There is only vague guidance on correct unsafe rust. (Because they haven't managed to crack the problem, just draw a perimeter around them)
4. See point 2 rebuttal
You can still find a lot of that in production code though. You're imagining a perfect world where everyone does the correct thing, but id that world existed we would need rust in the first place
Same thing will happen to unsafe rust once it becomes ubiquitous and we will be back talking about how to fix the problem of stupid coders
Dubious
Remember when try catch exceptions were invented and people said coders can no longer ignore errors? How many empty try/catch blocks exist on code today?
Rust doesn't really solve any of the UB in C, and just marks it as "unsafe".... We're back to square one
Even the basic logic is flawed.... That coders can't be trusted to handle pointers, but somehow can be trusted to write "safe" unsafe rust.
The basic contradiction of the rust fad, coders can't be trusted to be memory safe so those same coders must use rust and then all of sudden they can be trusted not to make common mistakes. And before some tart steps in to bring up safe rust, you're missing my point entirely
Then answer me this... What would be an appropriate level of diversity?
> I try to keep myself sharp by still manually doing a fair amount of things in my life.
I then list a load of shit that shows hes doing next to fuck all manually.
The man is larping.
So yes, he's larping if he thinks not using an llm is the humble life
Recreation is different, you're doing it for the fun of it, to learn.
This is a common misdirection. Nobody is charting with an AI song. Nobody cares about AI pop music. People are however using ai for jingles, interstitials, elevator music etc because nobody cares if some failed musician has poured his heart and soul into a theme tune for the menu of an educational dvd, they just want the end product... Nobody cares if formulaic crap is soulless, because it already was.
As I've pointed out, these are arbitrary, they make it easier for humans to reason about the problem, but they don't exist. Purely in your head.
And even your Sahara example is bunk, there are like 10 states within it's borders somehow existing in a barren ecology
This is an absolute larp. No doubt you use a washing machine and not a washboard. Hand coding in a few years will be like using the washboard when there's a washing machine.
God doesn't believe in the networking stack so you're good
Then take away cars as someone could crash and kill themselves with them. What kind of babyified logic is that?
They called it junk DNA and said it had no purpose, not that they weren't sure. This is the crux of my argument