C++ is a very old, extremely complex language. There are arguably objectively better modern alternatives, such as Rust.
I agree that Rust is the way to go, but calling something "arguably" & "objectively" in the same breath is a bit of a paradox innit?
Well, it was more to recognize that there is no inherently better programming languages in theory, they all do the same stuff. And some languages are "better" at some stuff just due to the libraries available and nothing to do with the language itself. But yea I do think Rust is an objectively better language than C++.
Rust is great, but anybody developing something should have the ability to choose whatever programming language they prefer. If you want it made with rust, make it yourself.
Of course, but it still makes sense to think carefully about the advantages of disadvantages of the tools you use when starting any project.
Not everyone with the knowledge to identify this mistake is in a position to personally correct it. Do you have the time and resources to personally build a browser from scratch? No? Why do you assume a random commenter does?
It doesn't change the fact that Rust is similarly performant and much safer and will thus be faster to develop and less bug-prone. It's not a difficult assessment to make. If you want to explain why they're wrong you can talk about the issue on its merits, but you didn't choose to, presumably because you can't.
Their choice of programming language isn't a 'mistake'. It isn't something that is 'corrected'. It's a development choice, nothing more. That's the point. And if some 'random commenter' doesn't like that choice, that's their problem to fix - not the developers who are actually making the project.
You said they "should have the ability to choose whatever programming language they prefer". I have good news for you.
You have correctly identified that the developers are responsible for their own decisions. They are, you will be very relieved to hear, quite free to make as many poor decisions as they will. Nobody is going to force them to stop.
Other people are more than capable of identifying that those decisions are mistakes. Now, that could be argued with, you could explain how it's not a mistake.
But you haven't. You just said they should be allowed to do it, but nobody was arguing that they needed to be stopped, just that it was a bad decision.
Edit: this person didn't actually say that first quote, but the line of argument proceeded from there, and they did nothing to distance themselves from that point.
I just don’t think it’s fair to tell somebody with over 20 years of experience with C++ that their decision to use C++ in their next project is a ‘fail’.
Learning a new language will probably not be faster than using one you’re already deeply familiar with.
I’m not sure why you’re asking me about the merits of C++ over rust, that wasn’t my point. I was simply advocating for personal choice.
Also, my first sentence was literally praising rust, but I guess I didn’t deepthroat it enough for you to notice? Presumably because you’ve taken the thought of somebody advocating for anything other than rust as a personal attack.
Criticism doesn't take away personal choice though. I don't know why that's hard for people to grasp.
If were just a personal project that they're building entirely on their own then sure, go nuts and do whatever you want. But they're trying to gain adoption, asking for contribution, and wanting to replace other browsers. At that point it's no longer just a personal choice if you're asking the community to invest their time and money into it with you
It originally started as just a fun side project.
But even if it hadn’t, are you suggesting we should no longer start big/community projects in C++?
Picking an unsafe language has the added benefit of distancing yourself from the toxic rust-or-die crowd, who can’t seem to mind their own damn business.
On February 8, 2021, the formation of the Rust Foundation was announced by its five founding companies (AWS, Huawei, Google, Microsoft, and Mozilla).[36][37] In a blog post published on April 6, 2021, Google announced support for Rust within the Android Open Source Project as an alternative to C/C++.[38]
Four out of five founding companies are evil to the bone, with only Mozilla being somewhat reputable. That does not give me much confidence, sadly.
On November 22, 2021, the Moderation Team, which was responsible for enforcing community standards and the Code of Conduct, announced their resignation "in protest of the Core Team placing themselves unaccountable to anyone but themselves[39]"
How am I not surprised?
In May 2022, the Rust Core Team, other lead programmers, and certain members of the Rust Foundation board implemented governance reforms in response to the incident.[40]
At least that. However, I don't care enough for the time being to spend my morning on reading what exactly they implemented.
The Rust Foundation very deliberately does not control the development of Rust. There has been issues with the moderation team in the past but I think they're actually resolved today. And let me just assure you that Rust is not the only language project with problems and the fact that they have been talked about and discussed in the open and resolved is a sign of maturity and trust, not a bad thing.
I suppose there are problems in many teams, yes - the majority of humanity is just not mature enough to treat each other professionally :/
Still - 4 out of the 5 founding companies being pure evil does not fill me with confidence :/
The language existed long before the foundation. The foundation is purely there to support the language.
C++ is a very old, extremely complex language. There are arguably objectively better modern alternatives, such as Rust.
I agree that Rust is the way to go, but calling something "arguably" & "objectively" in the same breath is a bit of a paradox innit?
Well, it was more to recognize that there is no inherently better programming languages in theory, they all do the same stuff. And some languages are "better" at some stuff just due to the libraries available and nothing to do with the language itself. But yea I do think Rust is an objectively better language than C++.
Rust is great, but anybody developing something should have the ability to choose whatever programming language they prefer. If you want it made with rust, make it yourself.
Of course, but it still makes sense to think carefully about the advantages of disadvantages of the tools you use when starting any project.
Not everyone with the knowledge to identify this mistake is in a position to personally correct it. Do you have the time and resources to personally build a browser from scratch? No? Why do you assume a random commenter does?
It doesn't change the fact that Rust is similarly performant and much safer and will thus be faster to develop and less bug-prone. It's not a difficult assessment to make. If you want to explain why they're wrong you can talk about the issue on its merits, but you didn't choose to, presumably because you can't.
Their choice of programming language isn't a 'mistake'. It isn't something that is 'corrected'. It's a development choice, nothing more. That's the point. And if some 'random commenter' doesn't like that choice, that's their problem to fix - not the developers who are actually making the project.
You said they "should have the ability to choose whatever programming language they prefer". I have good news for you.
You have correctly identified that the developers are responsible for their own decisions. They are, you will be very relieved to hear, quite free to make as many poor decisions as they will. Nobody is going to force them to stop.
Other people are more than capable of identifying that those decisions are mistakes. Now, that could be argued with, you could explain how it's not a mistake.
But you haven't. You just said they should be allowed to do it, but nobody was arguing that they needed to be stopped, just that it was a bad decision.
Edit: this person didn't actually say that first quote, but the line of argument proceeded from there, and they did nothing to distance themselves from that point.
I just don’t think it’s fair to tell somebody with over 20 years of experience with C++ that their decision to use C++ in their next project is a ‘fail’.
Learning a new language will probably not be faster than using one you’re already deeply familiar with.
I’m not sure why you’re asking me about the merits of C++ over rust, that wasn’t my point. I was simply advocating for personal choice.
Also, my first sentence was literally praising rust, but I guess I didn’t deepthroat it enough for you to notice? Presumably because you’ve taken the thought of somebody advocating for anything other than rust as a personal attack.
Criticism doesn't take away personal choice though. I don't know why that's hard for people to grasp.
If were just a personal project that they're building entirely on their own then sure, go nuts and do whatever you want. But they're trying to gain adoption, asking for contribution, and wanting to replace other browsers. At that point it's no longer just a personal choice if you're asking the community to invest their time and money into it with you
It originally started as just a fun side project.
But even if it hadn’t, are you suggesting we should no longer start big/community projects in C++?
Picking an unsafe language has the added benefit of distancing yourself from the toxic rust-or-die crowd, who can’t seem to mind their own damn business.
Taken from the wikipedia page on rust:
Four out of five founding companies are evil to the bone, with only Mozilla being somewhat reputable. That does not give me much confidence, sadly.
How am I not surprised?
At least that. However, I don't care enough for the time being to spend my morning on reading what exactly they implemented.
The Rust Foundation very deliberately does not control the development of Rust. There has been issues with the moderation team in the past but I think they're actually resolved today. And let me just assure you that Rust is not the only language project with problems and the fact that they have been talked about and discussed in the open and resolved is a sign of maturity and trust, not a bad thing.
I suppose there are problems in many teams, yes - the majority of humanity is just not mature enough to treat each other professionally :/
Still - 4 out of the 5 founding companies being pure evil does not fill me with confidence :/
The language existed long before the foundation. The foundation is purely there to support the language.