Why is it that there is such a push replace C/C++ all of the sudden?

Why is it that there is such a push replace C/C++ all of the sudden?

C has been in use even before i was born, everyone and their grandma has known about unsafe memory allocation all along and safer languages have existed for years, yet this is the first time in my life (i'm in my late twenties) that i ever heard so many calls to ditch C/C++.

Can anyone explain to a noob what exactly changed now?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >what exactly changed now
    gayMAN conglomerates don't want their airplanes, e-cars and other crap crashing and killing people, causing waves of lawsuits and reputation issues when 3rd world shitskins are writing their code, like it already happened with Boeing.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      So the problem is not the language but the moron who writes moronic code.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      C doesn't crash planes, Outsourcing does.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >C doesn't crash planes, Outsourcing does.
        Outsourcing and C are the same thing. They switched from Ada to C so they can hire cheaper programmers.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      What are you talking about? We already have Ada. Ada is heavily used in avionics (F22 systems are written in Ada). Java is heavily used for criticial business systems especially large large enterprise backends.

      You are concerned about safety but think using an new language like Rust in aircraft avionics is even a halfway intelligent think to do? s.m.h.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Why not? Back then Rust hadn't been so mature yet. Rust today is a good candidate for safety critical stuff.
        NTA btw just curious.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Do you think putting untried, untested things into systems where life and death is in the balance to be a sound, intelligent and responsible thing to do because you saw an article and a YT Vid and participated in a discussion on Dickscorda bout Rust? Is there a certified and proven safety-critical compiler and toolchain for Rust? No.

          Avionics and similar systems are not 'web apps' or Tiktoks for sky people. Relevantly many large companies don't implement or install certain software until its been at least two years in the testing and even then once they might sit in a test bed for a long while before being put into production.

          If you are developing your own drone or rocket for class or for fun that is one thing. But you are talking about systems that are huge in scope and affect millions if not billions of people not about some new headphones 'everyone' is talking about.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > untried, untested things into systems where life and death is in the balance to be a sound, intelligent and responsible thing to do
            Of course. I’m sure Ada wasn’t as mature as it is today when they first started using it. Can you give me technically sound reasoning not to consider Rust instead of the emotion driven word vomit you just spewed?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            His post is to the point and BTFOs you. The impotent rage and emotional incontinence of the troon is palpable in your reply.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why are you referring yourself as a third person?
            >The impotent rage and emotional incontinence of the troon is palpable in your reply.
            I only asked a question, why are you getting so mad?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It was designed from the very start to be applied to safety-critical systems by the DoD. Do you think they put Ada-based code into a rocket the first f#cking day they made teh compiler? Its been around at least since 1983 which is over FOURTY YEARS.

            Maybe the only source of emotionally-driven vomit is your left nostril and your drawer full of programming socks?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >designed from the very start
            what are some Ada designs that make it safer than Rust? Does it have anything akin to the borrow checker?
            >since 1983 which is over FOURTY YEARS.
            Are you saying they started using Ada in 2023? I don't understand your line of reasoning at all.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >what are some Ada designs that make it safer than Rust? Does it have anything akin to the borrow checker?
            no, most morons who bring up Ada don't understand that it's just Pascal with Arena allocators, bounds checking and overflow detection. It's literally a lesser Rust in every way imaginable.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ada came about in a very different way from Rust, marking all the checkboxes for these sorts of systems is basically its raison d'être. I don't think the comparison makes sense. (But it would for C and C++.)
            Plus the post is talking about letting it mature and prove itself, so you're not even really contradicting it by saying that Ada got more mature over time

            I dont rely on YT to for standards or trends for myself. I am fully aware of the existence of Ferrocene. You have therefore answered the question (for which I alreay knew the answer): there does not exist any certified safety-critical toolchain for Rust.

            Ferrocene is certified. Are they the wrong certifications? Which certifications is it missing to be "safety-critical"? I don't know the five-digit numbers by heart, please help me out

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do you get it that a suitable tool chain is the key? Only :you: give a f$ck about a specific programming language like it unwaveringly matters. For the most part the Ada ecosystem and infrastructure is infused with safety-critical competence from end to end. Rust is just yet another programming language unfortunately surrounded by overhype and quackery.

            If a Rust missionary knew anything about safety-critical systems he or she would have first known there wasn't a suitable safety-critical toolchain in existence and therefore would not have suggested its use in systems requiring safety-critical toolchains but would have instead expressed hopes of safety-critical toolchains being certified coming into existence { so that ... {desired use }}.

            Instead clueless zealots make incompetence-revealing suggestion to use Rust where there is no toolchain to support the suggested use as if everything in existence were a scratch n' sniff iOS scat porn app born from the taint of ChatGPT.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is a toolchain though with some level of certification, and AdaCore is doing Rust now. It has a long way to go before it can match Ada but the gap seems smaller than your post would suggest?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Ferrocene is certified
            But for avionics. And only recently (as of Nov. 2023) for "Road Vehicles".

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > But not* for avionics (which is what was being discussed)

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, so the status is that it's ready for some safety-critical systems but avionics is still a work in progress? When you basically called someone a moronic webshit trendhopper for even asking the question I expected something worse

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It was designed from the very start to be applied to safety-critical systems by the DoD. Do you think they put Ada-based code into a rocket the first f#cking day they made teh compiler? Its been around at least since 1983 which is over FOURTY YEARS.

        Maybe the only source of emotionally-driven vomit is your left nostril and your drawer full of programming socks?

        Tell me you have no idea what you are talking about without telling me you have no idea what you are talking about.
        Ada has worse guarantees than Rust and it is not used in safety critical infrastructure. SPARK is and it is is really unwieldy to use. There is no Ada code in rockets and such.
        Also making safety critical infrastructure is not just matter of choosing a language. You need a lot of stuff formally proven and tested.

        Either way, neither Ada nor Rust are sufficient for safety critical infrastructure.

        >Maybe the only source of emotionally-driven vomit is your left nostril and your drawer full of programming socks?
        The most emotionally-driven posts in that conversation were yours. Especially this sentence.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Tell me you have no idea what you are talking about without telling me you have no idea what you are talking about.
          Ironic coming from the morons thinking that Rust will suddenly be running in the avionics industry. No I'm not going to spoonfeed you morons either, you can go frick yourself and die like the ignorant cretin you are.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Ironic coming from the morons thinking that Rust will suddenly be running in the avionics industry.
            You have 0 reading comprehensions skills. I literally said: "Either way, neither Ada nor Rust are sufficient for safety critical infrastructure."

            >No I'm not going to spoonfeed you morons either, you can go frick yourself and die like the ignorant cretin you are.
            Your posts are getting more and more emotional.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >door blows off a flight
      >"that happened cuz they coded in C"
      moron

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        more accurately:
        >not-a-door plug blows off in flight
        >"that happened because *contrived bullshit here cover shit*
        >reality is because their shopfloor system is likely complete dog shit and doesn't hold shopfloor operators accountable to the engineer's standards for acceptable torque on bolts for this not-a-door plug or the inspectors are wildly incompetent.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        also he's talking about the AOA moroner during situations where you throttle too hard because the plane is inherently unstable with its moronic oversized engine configuration and how they coped with it.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Can anyone explain to a noob what exactly changed now?
    Nothing really changed other than someone made an alternative.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      did you even read OP?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      As i understand it alternatives like (C#, lisp, JavaScript, etc.) have already existed for years.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >C#, lisp, JavaScript, etc.
        None of those are alternatives to C++.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        All of those languages have heavy performance costs compared to C++. Rust does not.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          safe rust has massive performance penalties compared to C++. Only unsafe rust is as performant as c++

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No. What costs do you think it adds?

            >Also, those same people were highly influential on the design of Rust
            Just want to say that this seems very unlikely to me. I'm not a language zealot of any kind and I was just a baby when the Haskell hype took place but Rust is a very imperative language. To me it seems like a slightly altered C++ and the only thing that it really takes from functional languages is the option type of the ML family (closures don't really count because C++ has them and functions in Rust aren't really first class objects as they claim, they are the same as in C++, i.e. you can't return or pass a closure that captures the environment, no real nested functions etc.). I was really dissapointed by Rust because everyone was talking like it was some cool functional C variant but turns out it's just C++ (with some new system for memory safety I don't care about because I don't write production code). There was one youtube video in particular claiming that Rust is an ML language which couldn't be further from the truth and the person who made it is extremely dumb and has no idea what he is talking about. Also in Rust they claim to have type inference but it only infers the type in variable declarations. This is the worst part about Rust because with such a convoluted type system (like 6 different types just for strings), for me at least, it's impossible to guess the argument types and return type of a function. That was a small rant because knowing functional languages I felt deceived by the Rust hypers. I also don't get how you don't include features that have existed for decades like type inference (and others) in a modern language you create from scratch

            Traits are inspired by Haskell.
            Rust's original author really liked OCaml and wanted to take more from it, like its generic module system, but he got overruled by the rest of the team. (Probably for the better.)
            I agree Rust is basically imperative.
            >Also in Rust they claim to have type inference but it only infers the type in variable declarations. This is the worst part about Rust because with such a convoluted type system (like 6 different types just for strings), for me at least, it's impossible to guess the argument types and return type of a function.
            95% of the time the only string types you need are String and &str, FWIW. And the difference between these is really important, if you don't need to care whether a type is borrowed or owned then you're probably better off using a GC language.
            >I also don't get how you don't include features that have existed for decades like type inference (and others) in a modern language you create from scratch
            The idea is that implicit function signatures make it too easy to accidentally break backward compatibility, especially in a language where lifetimes are part of the type system. You have to write down the interface and then the implementation can be inferred. No part of the interface is inferred from the implementation.
            Closures can infer their argument and return types entirely. And impl return types can infer a concrete return type in such a way that compatibility is guaranteed.
            So this one is a very deliberate choice (for better or for worse).

            Do you think putting untried, untested things into systems where life and death is in the balance to be a sound, intelligent and responsible thing to do because you saw an article and a YT Vid and participated in a discussion on Dickscorda bout Rust? Is there a certified and proven safety-critical compiler and toolchain for Rust? No.

            Avionics and similar systems are not 'web apps' or Tiktoks for sky people. Relevantly many large companies don't implement or install certain software until its been at least two years in the testing and even then once they might sit in a test bed for a long while before being put into production.

            If you are developing your own drone or rocket for class or for fun that is one thing. But you are talking about systems that are huge in scope and affect millions if not billions of people not about some new headphones 'everyone' is talking about.

            >Is there a certified and proven safety-critical compiler and toolchain for Rust?
            https://ferrous-systems.com/ferrocene/
            AdaCore is working on it too: https://www.adacore.com/gnatpro-rust
            It's not done accumulating certifications, maybe not ready for avionics yet, but if you see it as a youtuber memelang you're way behind

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I dont rely on YT to for standards or trends for myself. I am fully aware of the existence of Ferrocene. You have therefore answered the question (for which I alreay knew the answer): there does not exist any certified safety-critical toolchain for Rust.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >all of the sudden

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This HAS happened before, most notably with Java and Haskell, but always with the concession that a GCless language was more reliable for any kind of time-sensitive work, like inside a kernel or a triple A game engine
    You didn't notice the Java hype because you were literally a baby, and even if you knew about the Haskell hype, you likely didn't take it seriously because of some stuff about the academic ivory tower
    The Haskell zealots absolutely did talk about safety, though they had a much broader beef with imperative languages than the specific problem of memory safety
    Also, those same people were highly influential on the design of Rust

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Also, those same people were highly influential on the design of Rust
      Just want to say that this seems very unlikely to me. I'm not a language zealot of any kind and I was just a baby when the Haskell hype took place but Rust is a very imperative language. To me it seems like a slightly altered C++ and the only thing that it really takes from functional languages is the option type of the ML family (closures don't really count because C++ has them and functions in Rust aren't really first class objects as they claim, they are the same as in C++, i.e. you can't return or pass a closure that captures the environment, no real nested functions etc.). I was really dissapointed by Rust because everyone was talking like it was some cool functional C variant but turns out it's just C++ (with some new system for memory safety I don't care about because I don't write production code). There was one youtube video in particular claiming that Rust is an ML language which couldn't be further from the truth and the person who made it is extremely dumb and has no idea what he is talking about. Also in Rust they claim to have type inference but it only infers the type in variable declarations. This is the worst part about Rust because with such a convoluted type system (like 6 different types just for strings), for me at least, it's impossible to guess the argument types and return type of a function. That was a small rant because knowing functional languages I felt deceived by the Rust hypers. I also don't get how you don't include features that have existed for decades like type inference (and others) in a modern language you create from scratch

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Rust is the first sane imperative language, from an Haskeller's point of view. It's definitely not a functional language, but that's how it looks to a C++ dev.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I think C is pretty sane if you don't view it as system to produce software but more in terms of a math abstraction. Also languages like Pascal are probably really good too but I haven't learned them. Rust seems less sane in my opinion because it overcomplicates some things and goes away from a math abstraction to be practical. I would say it's more like the first production/systems oriented designed language (because they needed a systems language and ended up adding things to C and C++ like size_t etc. but they weren't designed to be system languages (otherwise no additions would be necessary)). I heard Go's aims are similar in that regard

          No. What costs do you think it adds?

          [...]
          Traits are inspired by Haskell.
          Rust's original author really liked OCaml and wanted to take more from it, like its generic module system, but he got overruled by the rest of the team. (Probably for the better.)
          I agree Rust is basically imperative.
          >Also in Rust they claim to have type inference but it only infers the type in variable declarations. This is the worst part about Rust because with such a convoluted type system (like 6 different types just for strings), for me at least, it's impossible to guess the argument types and return type of a function.
          95% of the time the only string types you need are String and &str, FWIW. And the difference between these is really important, if you don't need to care whether a type is borrowed or owned then you're probably better off using a GC language.
          >I also don't get how you don't include features that have existed for decades like type inference (and others) in a modern language you create from scratch
          The idea is that implicit function signatures make it too easy to accidentally break backward compatibility, especially in a language where lifetimes are part of the type system. You have to write down the interface and then the implementation can be inferred. No part of the interface is inferred from the implementation.
          Closures can infer their argument and return types entirely. And impl return types can infer a concrete return type in such a way that compatibility is guaranteed.
          So this one is a very deliberate choice (for better or for worse).

          [...]
          >Is there a certified and proven safety-critical compiler and toolchain for Rust?
          https://ferrous-systems.com/ferrocene/
          AdaCore is working on it too: https://www.adacore.com/gnatpro-rust
          It's not done accumulating certifications, maybe not ready for avionics yet, but if you see it as a youtuber memelang you're way behind

          Oh yeah I forgot about traits. Also I have come across libraries requiring &[u8] for strings or returning vec<u8> besides those. The issue is worse when one function returns a vec and the other expects a &str because you can't convert between them (because Rust requires the compiler to statically know the size but this is impossible for vec). It makes sense to have different types when you are doing a low level systems language but it also allows for things like that to happen when libraries try to be too strict and don't use the most general type possible (&[u8] ? This might have not been an issue be an issue if they had subtypes (using traits even?) and type inference and the most general type was inferred). I see the argument for type signatures but along with Rust's type system you end up having to guess some wierd Option<CustomLibraryType<Option<...>>> type lol. I can think of ways around that while still requiring type signatures (like infering them and suggesting them to the programmer) but there is no point in discussing them. Maybe another new language can do it better because it would improve developer experience. Oh and I guess I might have a slight bias for GC languges after all

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I think C is pretty sane if you don't view it as system to produce software but more in terms of a math abstraction.
            C is hideous as a math abstraction. It's full of holes (aka backdoors) everywhere.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think this makes it a bad math abstraction. If you take pointers for instance then the abstraction C gives you is an infinte tape with addresses and you can use any integer as an address them so it's a math abstraction rather than a safe system that would have restrictions on what you can address due to practical concerns which don't really make a lot of sense in terms of math. Why should you not be able to address the first page of addresses of the tape, mathematically?

            >I think C is pretty sane if you don't view it as system to produce software but more in terms of a math abstraction.
            C is insane no matter how you slice it. If you want a low level language that looks like a "math abstraction", look at Forth.

            When I see C I see a simple yet powerful programing language which is also not particularly low level. Rust for example is much more lower level than C because it gives you more control (i.e. no coercions, different string types, etc.) but more control means more details which in my opinion is less like a math abstraction because abstractions are less about details (i.e. one string type like in Python or Haskell because the implementation of string doesn't matter from an abstract pov). C is forced to be quite abstract like that (for example int has no specified size) because it wants to be portable. This is what makes it bad for low level use unless you start abusing it

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Rust for example is much more lower level than C because it gives you more control
            Wtf are you talking about. They both are high level languages and both give you the same amount control.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You can have the same amount of control with both but in C I think it usually comes with undefined behavior which is one of the ways of abusing the language which was what I mentioned. Also in my opinion low level is in terms of how many details you need to take care of when writting a problem and Rust has tonnes more than C. Usually details mean control so in C you can use little control over details and basically write abstract code (which because it's abstract it's also portable) but in Rust you can't. So this is what I meant when I said Rust is lower level than C (and also when viewing it as a math abstraction C is pretty good)

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >in C I think it usually comes with undefined behavior which is one of the ways of abusing the language which was what I mentioned.
            If your C code has undefined behavior then you've made a mistake. You don't need to invoke UB to use it.

            >Also in my opinion low level is in terms of how many details you need to take care of when writting a problem and Rust has tonnes more than C
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-level_programming_language

            >Usually details mean control so in C you can use little control over details and basically write abstract code (which because it's abstract it's also portable) but in Rust you can't.
            Rust is significantly more suitable for making abstractions than C. C doesn't even have generics.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You don't need to invoke UB to use it.
            Maybe I was wrong. The more control I was thinking about in Rust are things you can just implement in C like u8 vs i8 chars vs unicode
            >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-level_programming_language
            I don't think this is a meaningful distinction anymore. I was viewing it more from a programmer pov. If you want to do something non trivial in assembly a lot of what you write is details like moving variables around, it's not that mathematical. In higer level languages you don't need details
            >Rust is significantly more suitable for making abstractions than C
            This is true. Sorry what I meant was that in C the code is more like math than managing a system (and viewing it like that C is sane)

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            given rust alllows you at a source level to declare no_std/no_alloc, I'd argue it is most certainly lower level than C

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yea, and in C you can hint a variable to be stored in a registry or to be volatile.

            It's not really matter in the greater scheme of things. Both are systems programming languages and both can do pretty much the same things.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Volatile variables are arguably higher-level than Rust's solution, which is to make the access volatile and not the type.
            Apparently GCC completely ignores register hints.
            I'm just nitpicking your examples though. Rust is higher-level than C because idiomatic use involves a ton of implicit code execution as well as semantics that are only acceptable because of aggressive inlining and optimization. There's a certain style of Rust that could be seen as lower-level than C but that's not most Rust code and not enough to make blanket statements.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you take pointers for instance then the abstraction C gives you is an infinte tape with addresses and you can use any integer as an address them so it's a math abstraction rather than a safe system that would have restrictions on what you can address due to practical concerns which don't really make a lot of sense in terms of math. Why should you not be able to address the first page of addresses of the tape, mathematically?
            That's not how pointers work in C at all.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >gives you more control
            >unsafe blocks in rust still follow all the nonsense memory borrowing rules

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I think C is pretty sane if you don't view it as system to produce software but more in terms of a math abstraction.
            C is insane no matter how you slice it. If you want a low level language that looks like a "math abstraction", look at Forth.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You didn't notice the Java hype because you were literally a baby
      Speak for yourself. I was running runescape servers as a sqweaker

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The average person is lower IQ now than the average person was in 1990
    Western countries have been experiencing a reverse Flynn affect (people are scoring progressively lower on iq tests) since the 1990s.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This and also they're still pushing to replace everyone with low cost pajeets who are functionally moronic.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      But how can this be? We took the lead out of petroleum!

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe it's more toxic / the increased number of vac**nes. Could be nerve damage from the toxins.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          it's the immigrants and outsourcing, you Black person

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Offtopuc but its really annoying to have to work with homosexuals who thinks lead solder produces "lead fumes". Anyone else know that horrible feel

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      moot point, since you need 200 IQ to understand ""modern"" C++. In 1990 the language was much simpler and it already was famous for being too complex

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      i think you might singlehandedly be lowering the average IQ

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Rust is for low IQ Black folk

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >all of the sudden
    Do you even understand that phrase?

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    C + C++ aren't memory safe, and all of our infrastructure is written in them. Maybe two years ago the cyber security czar resigned saying it was impossible to secure our infrastructure. And, we may be going to war in a year or whenever(!) So, it's time to start (they reckon, and I can't disagree), though rust isn't perfectly secure itself.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      We've been using C and C++ for literal decades. Likely longer than you've been alive. They might not be the current 'memory safe' fad that you're familiar with. But they are perfectly safe to use. We've landed objects on other planets using C. Rust has a few cli tools and web servers to its name. Its also a b***h to develop with a third of its userbase moving away from the language.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >We've landed objects on other planets using C
        Well, using MISRA C. Most critical infrastructure won't be using such tight standards. Just look at Linux.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >just look at the most widely installed operating system on the planet with no critical system implemented in rust. And was rust free for decades

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Misses the point
            I'm shocked.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >*crashes*

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Weird how that *doesn't* happen as often as you say it does. We aren't moving from one unknown variable to another unknown variable. Generally speaking the software programmed by knowledgeable C programmers has been used in mission critical systems for literal decades. Now you're retroactively going back and calling that "unsafe".

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Hey, man, keep at it. That other anon you're talking to is actually the White House director of cybersecurity and fully capable of reversing this decision. All you need to do is persuade her that C is safe and memory safety is a fake idea that China invented to market its communist NSA backdoors. I believe in you. Keep up the good work.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Holy frick, Rust is actually 50% LGBT? The memes were real?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's more like 15% if you can read and do math

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No. It says right there that 47% are LGBT.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >60% editor share is VS Code
            The only eyebrow-raising piece of information on that entire image. What a waste of time reading that was.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >underrepresented or marginalised groups do you consider yourself a part of?
            >religious
            >cultural
            >language
            >political beliefs
            Huh.
            >woman or perceived as a woman
            >trans
            Why does trans get two slots when
            >older or younger than the average
            is two categories in one?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'm not sure whether I've used MISRA standards or not, but, Microsoft is the cause of large companies - oil, medical - being held hostage. They're the main target I'd presume.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          MISRA doesn't do anything. There is no research that shows any meaningful improvement of using it.
          It also cannot be used in complex systems like an OS because it bans dynamic memory allocations.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >we may be going to war
      Maybe you will, lmao. Try and draft me, gays.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    trannies infected the white house. You let it metatarsals and this is the result.
    As for efficacy, assembly is all you need. scrubs need not reply.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You let it metatarsals
      Last night I metatarsalsed your sister

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Leftists control Rust so they're pushing it hard to gain power. It's just another pathetic power play.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >suddenly
    People have been begging for C/C++ replacement for literal decades.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      None of them have been any good though. Including <feel free to insert any troony dilation device language here>.
      If you want complete control and zero bloat, write your shit in assembler.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >None of them have been any good though. Including <feel free to insert any troony dilation device language here>.
        OP asked why is there suddenly a push to replace C/C++. I just pointed out that this push is nothing new and is nearly as old as C++ itself.
        What does Rust have anything to do with it? People wanted to replace C++ before Rust was ever a thing. Have you forgotten D already?

        >If you want complete control and zero bloat, write your shit in assembler.
        What?

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >marxist propaganda style poster
    go frick yourself

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    As containment?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      just send them to pol

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    programming is becoming more and more of a moron profession and we need to invent tools that stop morons from fricking things up, basically.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    why are there dozens of forms of this exact same thread every fricking day?

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    BigTech takeover of FOSS.

    1. Push a Code of Conduct (defined and controlled by external interest groups)
    2. Install the commissars who enforce the CoC ("trannies")
    3. Squeeze out the original developers (unless they convert to Rust and bow to the CoC)

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      How hard is it to not call people Black folk?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's not common that people in those projects (that they want to take over) call others names. It's fake drama over muh sexuality or underrepresentation or rudeness to bully out the nerds.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          If you can’t hide your power level in front of normal people, you got bigger issues.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, the bigger issue being c**ts like you defending hostile takeovers by corporate and government spooks who make nothing and actively stand in the way of technological progress.
            Not quoted either.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, the bigger issue being c**ts like you defending hostile takeovers by corporate and government spooks who make nothing and actively stand in the way of technological progress.
        Not quoted either.

        The people they take out are either "I don't take shit from no one" internet tough guys or defanged liberals left behind by the march of progress who still believe in respecting each other's opinion. The first ones leave on their own accord because they "won't deal with this bullshit", the latter are impeached over something trivial like pronoun usage. No one goes as far as calling anyone a Black person or a homosexual (as they should).

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    because i don't like it

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The White House is speaking up about it because it’s a national security issue. Countries like China and Russia and NK have government-run black hat operations and the US govt would like to minimize opportunities available to them

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Implementing UV-erasable or jumper-protected (not soft-flashable) ROM in motherboards especially for firmware would do far more for national security than implementing a programming language promoted by armchair zealot script-kiddies.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    C++ is the tool of choice for those who are knowledgeable and skilled and need to write high performance software.
    It is not a tool to be wielded by idiots.
    Since most people are fricking moronic I understand the message the white house is sending, but for frick's sake don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    Are we supposed to write video games in Rust now? There are barely any Rust gamedev resources. Also the syntax is horrendous (which C++ syntax is also, granted).
    Or is this just another forced diversity ploy? Can't have those white heterosexual men dominate the field with their C++, everybody must become a Rust troony.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      > It is not a tool to be wielded by idiots.

      Maybe they are trying to steer the idiots toward kiddie scissors?

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >all this palpable seethe
    You're absolutely shitting yourselves. Just geysering diarrhea from your prolapsed colons, launched into the air from the sheer hydraulic pressure, fishtailing all over the skyline while the contents of your entire digestive systems paint the roads. You're not even laying down stripes, what do you think this is doing to rush hour traffic? If any of those cars don't crash they're going straight to the car wash. Hope they have enough soap.
    Are you proud of yourselves?

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    just ban non-rust programming threads

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, ban all non-programming threads.
      I hate nocoders so much it's unreal.

      [...]

      More line cinile board.
      None of these threads are made by Rust programmers. They all are just ciniles seething.

      Also what's with ciniles seething over that white house article? It doesn't mention Rust even once, but all the ciniles are like "WHITE HOUSE WANTS YOU TO USE RUST".
      Rust is not the first or last memory safe language. Have they never heard about Java and myriad other managed safe languages?

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    A language that has settled down well and has been perfected and mastered won't rack them in cash, it's through changing to new platforms and selling new standards and overwriting everything again from scratch that will.

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    cause Black folk cant C

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      C is baby's first system programming language

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    why are you wasting everyone's time trying to start a flamewar?
    why don't you try and use it and come to your own conclusions?

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You can't just bootstrap Rust and the compiling process is insanely long and requires binary blobs, that's why.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You can bootstrap Rust.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not by writing your own compiler

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Do you even know what bootstrapping is?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You can't just bootstrap Rust and the compiling process is insanely long and requires binary blobs, that's why.
      you can bootstrap Rust. literally this thread is full of evidence of it

      [...]

      .

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's full of hundreds of posts of people calling each other liars, maybe you could find better evidence

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    C/C++ require competence, and there's a crisis in that regard.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      They demand a level of competence that increases exponentially with larger codebases
      Remember when OOP was supposed to fix that?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Systems programming requires competence, that's just how low level stuff is.
      If you want to lower the barrier of entry, you use managed languages. But you can't really use Go or Java for systems programming.

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why is it that there is such a push replace C/C++ all of the sudden?
    The dam broke.

    There was a pretty clear acceleration in the last few years where everyone just stopped taking "get gud" and "code analysis tools can handle it" seriously.

    Cniles shouted everyone down, now cniles are shouted down. Winner takes all.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      But one of the biggest concerns of rustannies is rust adoption. Seems like reality and your point haven't been introduced. But egg and your face are very well antiquated

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, C chads are still in the top 10% of programmers and still have the majority

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Can anyone explain to a noob what exactly changed now?
    Ok, I'll bite because nobody in this thread he got anywhere close to the real answer.

    Mainstream academia started pushing for midwits to join "le haxor club" by turning them into a generation of script kiddies that can copy/paste commands for kali tooling. Imagine running around with a comptardlgbtqia+ cert and asserting you're a hackermans. Just no.

    What you're looking at is establishment morons, in this case a foid with no engineering background, parroting what the moronic normies are saying.

    Here's the reality, it's next to impossible to build an actually useful ROP chain; buffer overflows are next to impossible to create without doing some dumb shit with memcpy over user generated content; ASLR jumping into useful user library code next to impossible without another exploit to leak some memory first; and not to mention you cant just run arbitrary code thanks to X^W or at the very least the no execute bit. What you're hearing is moronic midwits recite decades old "le c is bad" propaganda from the early 2010s, and even then it was somewhat outdated.

    Now lets look at their target audience: companies getting pwnd by phishing emails, companies whom primarily use Java and C#; and companies whom get exploited by completely unrelated means

    In other words, adopt the Rust goyim. The government says so. Until next week when the government is le bad

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >ASLR [made] jumping into useful user library code next to impossible without another exploit to leak some memory first

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >it's next to impossible to build an actually useful ROP chain
      no it's not

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >no it's not

        >buffer overflows are next to impossible to create without doing some dumb shit with memcpy over user generated content
        Yeah. There is no way someone would make a mistake like that in a project as critical as openssl for example.

        >Yeah. There is no way someone would make a mistake like that in a project as critical as openssl for example.
        t. aforementioned F5ing comptardlgbtqia+ cert skids

        if youre going to make a point, at least dont get your shit completely twisted. there was never a remote code execution or rop chain exploit in openssl that would implicate real world web services.

        thanks for proving my point tho

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >t. aforementioned F5ing comptardlgbtqia+ cert skids
          Are you getting a stroke?

          >there was never a remote code execution or rop chain exploit in openssl that would implicate real world web services.
          I never said anything about these two specific forms of vulnerabilities.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Are you getting a stroke?
            >He doesn't even know what im referring to
            "thanks for proving my point tho"

            >I never said anything about these two specific forms of vulnerabilities.
            I have nothing to add, yet my opinion is worth something. Frick off back to orange site or reddit.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I have nothing to add, yet my opinion is worth something.
            You shouldn't be making a post then.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >buffer overflows are next to impossible to create without doing some dumb shit with memcpy over user generated content
      Yeah. There is no way someone would make a mistake like that in a project as critical as openssl for example.

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    troons who latch onto a programming language because of memes want to feel represented by said programming language spuriously being used everywhere

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >at this point we need a rust board
    no
    we need a cpp board to shit on rust

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Idk. tbh rust should be replacing shitware like like .NET and Java.

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