| ▲ | jamincan 2 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
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. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||