It's over. Rust won.

It's over. Rust won.

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >microsoft had declared this not a vulnerability
    C wins again!

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    these language wars are so gay and dumb
    just use whatever you enjoy
    >le heckin' CVEs
    few people are paid enough to care about these things
    those that are have various tools at their disposal, if they don't choose to use them how is that a problem for me and what languages I enjoy?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      (cont'd)
      and even if you eradicated various c++ security issues overnight, and everybody used rust, it would breed a whole new world of thinking about how to compromise systems. necessity is the mother of invention. no language can permanently shield itself against vulnerabilities and problems, and people exist whose sole joy in life is to invent new ways to break things. the arms race will never end.
      remember when cpu side channel exploits were discovered? a whole new world of bullshit opened up overnight.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So what do you suggest? Turn blind eye to these security threats?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        leave them to whoever cares about them
        eventually OS developers will be forced to use whatever's relatively better (probably rust, but who knows ultimately)
        as a user I'm more or less at the mercy of whatever they decide to use, I'm not going to revolve my life around some kind of language jihad
        do you personally write software where something like a buffer overflow could frick over your users or make you legally liable somehow? if not, then why make a big fuss? why do we need 20 threads a day about these pissing contests?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Because the people who have time to talk about rust clearly don't have responsibilities like employment.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That explains why 99% of the posts are C "programmers" making up things about Rust. All the people using Rust have 20+ years of C/C++ experience and are making real software at Mozilla, Microsoft, or Google.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If there are actually programmers using Rust for their jobs, why aren't their employees hiring Rust programmers to replace them?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because the current programmers at those companies want to use Rust. They think Rust is better than C++ for what they are doing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The number of jobs writing rust is tiny. One of the things the rust community complained about in the rust survey was a lack of industry traction.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Big ships turn slowly, Microsoft, israelitegle and others are all changing course to Rust unfortunately.

            You'll probably see the demand in 2-3 years.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >why aren't their employees hiring Rust programmers to replace them?
            You dumb b***h ass homie, do you need to hire different people to drive different truck? Do you need to hire different people to use different screwdrivers from different manufacturers? Do you need to hire different chef to use different rice cookers?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      do cniles do anything other than frickin cope
      they definitely dont sit around writing secure software all day, as we've all seen

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Can some big brain tell me why this whole 'borrow checker' functionality from rust couldn't be implemented just by improving compiler, and forcing #unsafe_start #unsafe_end block to be used for some operations, so that the program could properly compile?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Borrow checker works because lifetimes are part of type system. It has nothing to do with unsafe though. Unsafe doesn't disable borrow checker.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      ok, you take the borrow checker while ignoring everything else that works in tandem with it. you add it to cpp, it's an optional feature because of course. new libraries aren't likely to use it because it strongly discourages certain design patterns, and the ecosystem from the past 30 years certainly isn't using it. your company requires cpp11. what has been achieved, exactly?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It requires tracking at the intermediate level for analysis, so no, you can't just tack it on. It has to be incorporated throughout the whole compiler and by the time you've done that you've basically rewritten the compiler

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The first problem is that the borrow checker is not enough. It only checks for aliased or dangling references. It's not much use if you don't also prevent uninitialized variables, uninitialized fields in structs, and unsynchronized mutable state shared between threads. Those are all covered separately by different parts of the Rust compiler and type system. C++ currently treats all these problems as a fact of life and does not give you tools for systematically avoiding them, but any one of them can trivially break the assumptions the borrow checker is built on, and then the whole house of cards implodes like a sub at crush depth. Adding all those checks to C++ requires a major overhaul of compiler internals, as Sean Baxter likes to point out.
      The second problem is that the borrow checker is much more aggressive than it needs to be if you don't have lifetime annotations. You can just let it infer the lifetimes, but the inference algorithm it uses is VERY simple and essentially assumes the worst case scenario. You need some way to manually annotate the 10% or so of lifetimes it can't guess correctly, or it turns into a nightmare.
      The third problem is the biggest. We're now on, what, 40 years of legacy C++ code? None of it was written with these safety measures in mind. Turning on these checks tomorrow would produce a shitstorm of build failures and might require total rewrites of billions of lines of code, especially if you need to manually annotate lifetimes or "unsafe" sections. What project manager would approve of such a rewrite? The ones who care about safety? What's stopping them from telling their programmers right now that they have to switch to Rust?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        To your third point, it's been the biggest problem for years but no one wanted to do anything about it. Everything since C++0x has been about wanting to have their cake and eat it too with regards to safety. The committee and ISO standardization process is dysfunctional, it only exists to maintain the status quo. All these talks about trying to aim for memory safety are aiming 5 miles behind where the target is

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >What's stopping them from telling their programmers right now that they have to switch to Rust?
        In both the cases you described, the company will have a major budget rise, since rewriting code in a more strict safety standard requires tons of time, but so is forcing all your devs to learn a new language.

        So I see the real goal of Rust is to completely replace C/++ in the next 10 years and personally I'm not really sure that's feasible nor that everyone will follow on.

        There's another giant issue that fricking no one talks about: what about embedded development? Because currently, there are not even many IDEs that works that well (IAR and STM32CubeIde comes to mind) with C/++ enviromnent and I'm willing to bet this number is 0 for Rust.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >We're now on, what, 40 years of legacy C++ code?
        Pretty much proves all this gay shit isn't necessary.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Correct. If you can find programmers who never make mistakes, safety is redundant.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >does not give you tools for systematically avoiding them
        this is why this approach is superior than getting spoon fed by a moron who thinks that xyr can predict everything for every platform.
        you can have try-catch blocks in C with longjumps
        you have try-catch in C++
        the language gives you simple tools and the freedom to do whatever the frick you want.
        for rust and other cuck-languages, you have to hold it right, you have to use it right, otherwise some rust troony that is unable to find work will sit in an indonesian basket weaving forum and bust your balls all day about how xyr language is superior to whatever you are programming with.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You can unwind in Rust using panics. Same mechanism as try/catch in C++. It's just not encouraged for regular error handling.
          Is there other stuff that you feel Rust doesn't give you the tools for?

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i had to look up this "vulnerability". basically there is a function to recursively delete files called std::filesystem::remove_all that is not supposed to follow symlinks, but there is a race condition where an attacker could delete the original file and replace it with a symlink between the check and the deletion. creating symlinks requires admin priviliges on windows. if you are already admin, there is nothing to gain by this. rusttrannies as usual making bs.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How would Rust have prevented this? It sounds like it has nothing to do with Rust's memory safety features.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Rather than operate on paths, they use handles to directories/files and open them with extra flags to grab symlinks themselves rather than transparently get whatever they link to.
        Then use the posix semantics delete if available (since win 10 and not on all filesystems eg. not on FAT32) which deletes the file as soon as the handle marking for deletion (your handle) is closed.
        If not available use the windows delete that will delete the file once all handles are closed, this has to loop to retry because shit can lag behind.

        Yea it has little to do with memory safety. It is a point against the standard worship though. Standard says one thing (although not very precisely) but the implementers say "dun wanna / too hard" and just ignore it
        Rust standardless approach instead identified the issue, deemed it relevant enough, then fixed it
        What's the point of a standard if it's only invoked when gccBlack folk break your code yet again

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >NoOooo a hecking sysadmin might symlink a dir to root
          >NoOOoo now another tool is traversing the dir tree and accessing resources within it
          >NoOooo this breaks my hecking posix model
          no, i think this is just an issue of morons being morons.
          >Rust standardless approach instead identified the issue, deemed it relevant enough, then fixed it
          they fixed nothing. your file system and means of ipc is still fundamentally broken.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Mental gymnastics.
            NTA btw.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >NTA btw.
            yea you are. nobody else would be moronic enough to swing their hand up, after being called out for this being a philosophy posix issue and not that language safety, to say "hurrhurr mental gymnastics." piss off and shill your safe :tm: language elsewhere. wake me when you get more features introduced into the troonyfox browser you were initially developed for.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Buck broken.
            NTA btw.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >NoooOOOOooo ACTUALLY the standard doesn't really matter and even though it says it shouldn't follow symlinks, it's okay in this case because doing it right is too hard for us!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            dumb moron
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symlink_race

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >picrel
          Rustsisterz, explain:
          How. The. Frick. This. Is. More. Readable. Than. C++ and Java???

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            what are you failing to understand, sis?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Java
            Java does not have a recursive directory removal function in its std.
            dumb moron

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Rusttroony can't comprehend even a simple post
            anon just look at what the pills you are taking are doing to your body...
            stop while you still can

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >no argument

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I didnt ask about the std, I am talking about the readability, sis ackberg.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            it's readable to me and many others
            sounds like a you issue

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            it's not readable, it's garbage.
            Perl has more constistency than Rust.

            what are you failing to understand, sis?

            there isn't anything that isn't understandable, you are mostly talking to people who now and are allowed to touch the memory and other components of a computer on a low level, unlike rust trannies who have to be blocked from that.
            his assertion is about the garbage syntax.
            I don't know why his statement is std::hard.to().unwrap()?;
            Ok(())?
            use Normal::People;
            Some(_) of us find it strange that People complained about the Perl syntax with the overuse of symbols,
            or Java's.approach().to().call().members().upon().members().eternaly
            or (Lisps `(overusing (parenthesis 0*~~
            but here we are with Rust combining all those into one excrement.
            The india of all languages.
            anyhow::anyhow<Self> the thing is that Rust is as appetizing to the eye, as those inverted penises trying to resemble a vegana.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >muh syntax
            the LARPer's favorite argument since it requires no knowledge

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            exactly.
            the LARPers LARPed against javascript's clown syntax, =, ==, ===, but then they implemented it in their language.
            then the LARPers LARPed against try-catches, but since 2018 try is a keyword
            then the LARPers LARPed against C's macros and eventually made macros, procedural macros, derive macros, attribute macros.
            the whole language is a mess.
            I hate LARPers so fricking much, no matter how much they LARP that Rust is consice, safe and has future.
            the whole language is a troonystein of garbage from other languages.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            cope and seethe

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            cope for what?
            I use a language that has been standardized since 99 and has been consistent across 500 architectures, including toasters.
            I am not coping for anything, I am enjoying the life of programming. A joy it is.
            seethe?
            for what again? I am laughing at your arguments and I am doing that in front of your face.
            From what I see is that trannies are trying to cope with this shit language by introducing another symbol in the syntax every week
            and they are seething at people who critisize the language.
            you can see it by yourself.
            The other anon said that C++ and Java syntax is garbage and then compared this garbage syntax with Rust and out of all the people here useing C++ and Java, only the rust troony seethed at him.
            this is trully an existential problem. Don't question the CCP, because you might lose your head. Don't question Stalin, because you might get erased.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The problem with C macros isn't that they're macros, it's that they're unhygienic and error-prone. Lisp programmers have been jerking off about the superiority of their own macros over C macros for like four decades at least.
            Rust doesn't have ===.
            When people complain about try-catch they complain about exceptions, not the fact that there's a keyword spelled "try".
            I don't think you really tried to understand anything anyone said.

            still wrong
            https://godbolt.org/z/v66TaYzh7

            https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/filesystem/directory_iterator doesn't say you shouldn't follow a symlink argument, help me out here

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >When people complain about try-catch they complain about exceptions, not the fact that there's a keyword spelled "try".
            this is what happened. complain about exceptions, get "try" as a reserved keyword.
            >Rust doesn't have ===.
            must've been something else, then that I confused it with.

            [...]
            It looks like you are getting a stroke.

            no, I am fine, did you run out of wojaks? maybe the troony brigade will provide you with fresh ones when they finish dilating.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >this is what happened. complain about exceptions, get "try" as a reserved keyword.
            Right, and the try keyword isn't for exceptions. I think the current plan is to use it for local short-circuiting, a little like the nullsafe operators some languages have.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            rust lacks exception handling. they handle errors with Result and ? and then there's panics.
            this is why the other anon said that the syntax is not readable.
            this is the most unintuitive language that is used right now, even less than erlang or some obscure lisp that's been dead for 30 years.
            it's designed by non-programmers, targeting non-programmers.

            it's readable to me and many others
            sounds like a you issue

            >but I had breakfast this morning

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            dumb moron

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Lots of languages don't use exceptions, even popular ones. C++ is adding std::expected just now and many places (like Google) use it without exceptions, Go uses return values for errors, C has half a dozen options but usually it's a return value or an out parameter, ML and Haskell use systems similar to Rust's, Swift is doing some weird thing that AFAIK tbhgars to return types.
            Rust's way isn't hard to grasp.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            literally just read if left to right
            no, don't glance and guess
            READ it Black person

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Result and ? Are way more readable than hidden nested control flow in form of exceptions.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >it's designed by non-programmers, targeting non-programmers.
            Rust is designed by C++ experts targeting C++ experts. Have you ever written a JavaScript JIT with concurrent GC in C++? Then you'll appreciate Rust.

          • 1 month ago
            Anοnymουs

            hoare himself was a c++let and designed the language for c++lets according to him
            https://thenewstack.io/rust-creator-graydon-hoare-talks-about-security-history-and-rust/
            that was his goal in 2006, you know, pre-c++11 when c++ was c with classes.
            these are the same people who erased ff from existence

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            hoare himself was a c++let and designed the language for c++lets according to him
            https://thenewstack.io/rust-creator-graydon-hoare-talks-about-security-history-and-rust/
            that was his goal in 2006, you know, pre-c++11 when c++ was c with classes.
            these are the same people who erased ff from existence

            How hard could it be to find competent C++ programmers? Back in 2006 you only needed to spend a paltry 10 years to pick it up, even now it's only 20, what's the problem?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            exactly.
            the LARPers LARPed against javascript's clown syntax, =, ==, ===, but then they implemented it in their language.
            then the LARPers LARPed against try-catches, but since 2018 try is a keyword
            then the LARPers LARPed against C's macros and eventually made macros, procedural macros, derive macros, attribute macros.
            the whole language is a mess.
            I hate LARPers so fricking much, no matter how much they LARP that Rust is consice, safe and has future.
            the whole language is a troonystein of garbage from other languages.

            It looks like you are getting a stroke.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why didn't they just use Haskell's syntax?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The language was mostly grammar-free (except for string literals) and parsable with LL(2) parser for most time
            This means you can literally just read from left to right, top to bottom, to understand any code if you know the language

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Is it really necessary for Rust to have a syntax so ugly?
          Goddamnit even Python has a better syntax.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yea, it filters out ADHDs and morons that can't sit the frick down and read it like an adult would, only glancing and guessing If you don't want to know what exactly a function is doing, there is a whole signature and event a comment describing it available. If you do, then read homie, read

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >if you are already admin, there is nothing to gain by this. rusttrannies as usual making bs.
      moron. The point is that, as long as the process was launched in a privileged context (like a driver for example), an unprivileged user could use it to delete shit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      On all the servers we run at work you don't need to be root to create a symlink

      Rather than operate on paths, they use handles to directories/files and open them with extra flags to grab symlinks themselves rather than transparently get whatever they link to.
      Then use the posix semantics delete if available (since win 10 and not on all filesystems eg. not on FAT32) which deletes the file as soon as the handle marking for deletion (your handle) is closed.
      If not available use the windows delete that will delete the file once all handles are closed, this has to loop to retry because shit can lag behind.

      Yea it has little to do with memory safety. It is a point against the standard worship though. Standard says one thing (although not very precisely) but the implementers say "dun wanna / too hard" and just ignore it
      Rust standardless approach instead identified the issue, deemed it relevant enough, then fixed it
      What's the point of a standard if it's only invoked when gccBlack folk break your code yet again

      IIRC the standard says race conditions are UB, they were allowed to do this

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        try reading before responding, dumb moron
        >Yea it has little to do with memory safety. It is a point against the standard worship though. Standard says one thing (although not very precisely) but the implementers say "dun wanna / too hard" and just ignore it
        >Rust standardless approach instead identified the issue, deemed it relevant enough, then fixed it
        >What's the point of a standard if it's only invoked when gccBlack folk break your code yet again

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This part's wrong or maybe I just don't understand
          says one thing (although not very precisely) but the implementers say "dun wanna / too hard" and just ignore it
          The standard said they didn't have to handle it and then they didn't handle it, which part did they ignore?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            wrong
            https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/filesystem/remove
            >Symlinks are not followed (symlink is removed, not its target).
            gcc's libstdc++ is partially fixed here: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104161
            except they didn't fix it on windows
            >This doesn't avoid the TOCTTOU races with directory
            >symlinks, but we can't avoid them on Windows without openat and
            >unlinkat, and creating symlinks requires admin privs on Windows anyway.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            However as per my previous post:
            >The behavior is undefined if the calls to functions in this library introduce a file system race, that is, when multiple threads, processes, or computers interleave access and modification to the same object in a file system.
            https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/filesystem
            The standard says the old behavior was OK, they didn't ignore it

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            still wrong
            https://godbolt.org/z/v66TaYzh7

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's not a race condition in the language, but in the environment of the OS
        Standard says doesn't go through symlinks, so it shouldn't

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The behavior is undefined if the calls to functions in this library introduce a file system race, that is, when multiple threads, processes, or computers interleave access and modification to the same object in a file system.
          https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/filesystem

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Don't see anything in the 20 draft

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This is about the whole module, not just that function

            toctou is not a vulnerability
            cybersec is a fricking joke, hang every single one of them

            TOCTOU can lead to vulnerabilities

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The fact this was unironically merged into the C++ standard is fricking hilarious.
            >Uh yeah, we define behavior for these functions, but if [thing that's 100% impossible to prevent] happens, they're all UB.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            absolutely hilarious. i also think there's backstory (not that it matters) that the header was in development since the 00s that by the time it was stabilized, it was 10+ years out of date design-wise

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sounds like a non issue of the sort that only Rust trannies could bother to waste their time on. Programmers of other languages have real work to do.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >if you are already admin, there is nothing to gain by this. rusttrannies as usual making bs.
      other than following muh standard, oh how quick cniles are to forget about it when it's no longer convinient

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the standard says it is UB. i am perfectly happy with UB.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          where?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            idk, in the section about filesystem i guess. look it up if you care.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >creating symlinks requires admin priviliges on windows
      No, just the SE_CREATE_SYMBOLIC_LINK_NAME privilege.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        which by default is only available to administrators. if you decide to make your system insecure, that's on you.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Windows specific issue
    Yawn

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Op here, rust isn't actually going anywhere. I just like to troll 4chins.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yet it’s used in my phone, my shell, my browser, my kernel, and the website I’m posting in. Cnile mental delusion is getting out of hand.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Its used to backdoor those things. The rust API for linux driver goes months without an update. The point was never to replace C or improve the "safety" of the kernel. It was there to backdoor

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What backdoor? Can you show me in the API code where the supposed backdoor is?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Can you show me a mainlined driver that uses the API? Can you show me a valid reason why we need an unstable rust api/abi/package system in the kernel build process?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            In the ISO C standard. They hate Rust because it removes the backdoor.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          the absolute fricking state of cniles.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        same as C, Perl, Python, Shell, Makefile
        you are in the "Other 0.1%" section btw

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Perl, Python, Makefile
          They are build scripts.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >rust isn't actually going anywhere
      exactly.
      it's been 20 years in development and nothing useful has been made.
      only hobby projects re-writing simple tools.
      rust isn't going anywhere

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Op here, rust isn't actually going anywhere. I just like to troll 4chins.

        If it isn't going anywhere why do you need to affirmatively repeat it to each other? Is this a coping mechanism?

        (This post was sent and verfied using Rust in Cloudflare)

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Who here has been affected by security issues caused by std::filesystem, or knows someone who has been? I'd like to hear what happened.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I was writing a game and it crashed cus 2 threads were writing the same file at the same time
      I threw a mutex lock on the file writing function and it stopped crashing

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        But that's a mistake on your end, and not something that affected security since you did it and affected yourself. This was about security, so I wanna hear about this mythical attacker that's gonna exploit shit and how it will affect my computer.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Rust is winning because some mentally ill freak is pissing themselves over "undefined behaviour" once again
    >POSTED IT AGAIN AWARD
    >POSTED IT AGAIN AWARD
    >POSTED IT AGAIN AWARD
    >POSTED IT AGAIN AWARD
    ok, some reddit tard with nothing better to do than emailing committees and post their shite ideas all over orange-site/reddit the moment they arrive, doesn't know shit. specifically, they dont know that file descriptors were traditionally bound to posix processes (read: threads) with what we would want to be thread-local information, such as stream positions, being attached to the fd. what is this troonys point? that you cant ass rape seeks between threads and then know where you ended up? that there should be yet another file descriptor abstraction, cache, and dup-on-access, just for concurrent access? what Black person or troony hands wrote this?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I was writing a game and it crashed cus 2 threads were writing the same file at the same time
      I threw a mutex lock on the file writing function and it stopped crashing

      case in point, morons don't know what a file descriptor is, and cannot get into file system locks. not a language issue /closed /msftjeetcurryBlack personfrickedyourmother

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why do cniles get so overly defensive everytime they see anything negative being posted in the internet? Is this some kind of a religion?

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    > The sound of one hand clapping.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Total securitygay death. Literally everything that sucks in software the last few years is because some sEcUriTy eXpErT came up with a hypothetical attack that can only occur under extremely contrived circumstances and then decided that everything needs to be overhauled and ruined to prevent the thing they imagined.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      no, you're thinking of UI and UX designers that don't use the software they're fricking up

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        wayland literally killed linux desktop because "muh security"

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          don't use wayland or write your own. not my problem

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      wayland literally killed linux desktop because "muh security"

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You are a fricking idiot. We are aware of that since forever. Don't use std::filesystem for anything that handles sensitive data, that needs special treatment heavily dependent on OS specifics. Adding that overhead to everything else is as stupid as you are, you idiot.
    And rust is still homosexual trash.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >We are aware of that since forever.
      why the frick would they add a broken piece of shit api in c++17 lmao? some "forever" ago

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He's LARPing, he's not a programmer.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >we've known forever our software is fundamentally insecure, and we dont care!
      >CHECKMATE, TRANNIES!
      you tell em sepplernig

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Another victory for C++ wifebeaters!

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I just use Win32 API's functions because I don't have to care about portability.
    Yes Win32 sucks but it's still better than having to deal with C++'s bajillion gotchas.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      there isn't an equivalent of this function in the win32 api, you would have to write your own and you would fail even harder at it than the std lib devs

  13. 1 month ago
    Anοnymουs

    Ok(())

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    to write anything of note in Rust you have to call C or C++ libraries

    the end

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      wrong
      https://github.com/sunfishcode/eyra
      >Eyra is a package that supports building Rust programs implemented entirely in Rust.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Linux only

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No matter what language you write on windows. Windows still will be the blackest monkey Black person when in cums on security and dog shit file system. DONE! PERIOD!! END OF DISCUSSION!

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >safety
    Sometime you have to be a little risky, a little osé. Maybe your puter like it a little rough, have you ever think about that? Throw it one or two segfault to keep it in check. A stackoverflow on it checks.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Literally just add ? when you want to check for errors
    >This is unreadable how could you do this

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >you().will().never::be().a().woman()?.unwrap()

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >we need to talk about
    Stopped reading right there. Any piece of writing that begins with that statement can be disregarded

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    toctou is not a vulnerability
    cybersec is a fricking joke, hang every single one of them

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    how many employees do they need on IQfy shilling this shit language to give third worlders jobs?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      third worlders can't read rust

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I wonder why rustroon always treat their own language like it's some kind of E.coli
    Does it remind them of their axe wound?
    Is their goal to infect everything and dies out?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I wonder why rustroon always treat their own language like it's some kind of E.coli
      "Their own language" means C? Is E. "C"-oli what "C" stands for?

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >tonne
    Non-American opinions about tech are literally irrelevant.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      all the more reason to throw out C++ because of the stinky danes

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Bjarne Stroustrup
      >Inventor of C++

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the amount that C++ brownoids and boomers that are absolutely losing their minds in this thread shows you just how over it is for them.
    >"NNOOOOO TRANNIES TRANNIES TRANNIES TRANNIES TRANNIES TRANNIES"

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *