| Don't get me wrong, it sounds positive. A direct attack on Fil-C would have seemed mean-spirited so there is a lot of misdirection. Maybe the author doesn't even see what he's doing because he's so deep in it. But to me the message is clear. No matter what tools are developed for C and C++ to mitigate memory issues, Rust people will never concede that enough of these issues have been solved. They demand a complete rewrite of everything, or at least gradual replacement of all C and C++ code with Rust. Even if Rust is worse in other ways, does not deliver true safety, has technical shortcomings and worse licensing, etc. This post is very polite compared to what I've seen from some Rust fanatics. But it still strikes me as talking down to the C and C++ community, as if these languages are beyond redemption because they don't work the same as Rust. |
| |
| ▲ | jamincan 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Graydon's post was about as full-throated an endorsement of Fil-C as you can get, including noting where it's innovations could be used to improve Rust safety. The fact that you see undertones of some sort of deepset Rust agenda to unseat C and C++ is, I think, more a reflection on just how deep down the rabbit hole some Rust critics have gone, seeing so-called Rust zealots hiding in every shadow of the internet. | | |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 2 days ago | parent [-] | | If anything, Rust zealots sure aren't hiding, their agenda is deep-set and out in the open, and they are generally obnoxious. They're pushing the language far harder than it deserves, and harder than I've ever seen any language pushed. They are scrambling to rewrite everything in Rust whether there is any benefit to doing so or not. The inclusion of Rust in the Linux kernel is a prime example. So is the deployment of broken coreutils replacement tools in Ubuntu. If you challenge the obvious campaign, they'll call you a dinosaur or something. This post is borderline or lowkey Rust propaganda IMO. You might disagree with that but you're not going to convince me there is no campaign. It also seems reasonable that Rust programmers would feel threatened by anything that makes C and C++ safer and more usable. While there is some benefit to comparing and contrasting different solutions to memory safety, this guy is clearly biased. | | |
| ▲ | Klonoar 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't think you understand that the post was written by the creator of Rust. That he is writing positive things about Fil-C says more than enough. > If anything, Rust zealots sure aren't hiding, their agenda is deep-set and out in the open, and they are generally obnoxious. You really need to drop the paranoia. | | |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It's not paranoia, I see what has been taking place as I said. I did not realize that this dude is the author of Rust. I can forgive the creator of a language for stumping for his own product. But he is clearly doing it in this post and making claims that Rust does everything better even as he is saying nice things about Fil-C. If you think my outlook is paranoid or whatever, you should take it up with the Rust community, not me. |
|
|
|
|
