191–200 of 929 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You see it a lot more often from the Microsoft world since MSVC only supported "C/C++" as a combined language, there was no separate C compiler.
MSVC is a C++ compiler only. It doesn't actually support C.
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/c11-and-c17-standard-...
Calling him the Azure CTO is strictly accurate, but HN readers probably know Mark Russinovich better as one of the primary developers of sysinternals[1]. I bring that up to highlight the weight of his opinion: Russinovich is legendary in terms of his systems programming contributions. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sysinternals
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a fairly recent thing that some people do as a kind of virtue signaling. The "C/C++ Users Journal" was a very popular publication and no one took issue with its name. Nor do people take issue with Dr. Dobbs which has a "C/C++" section with articles from highly influential members of the C/C++ community. C++ is a complex language, so people invent ways to show how dedicated they are to it, and nowadays that mea…
C/C++ is as naïve as ASM/C or Ape/Human. You come up with examples that are over 30 years old.
I'm waiting for Rust to support both static and dynamical link equally well. static link produces binaries too large for my embedded boards when stdlib is needed. dynamic link looks like a second class citizen to me in Rust. Is there some hope?
You have to include the copyright notice and license, but I almost never see that being done (and, based on the Rust projects I’ve seen, there are often tens, or even hundreds of MIT/BSD/Apache licensed dependencies).
If only IBM can get Rust working on AIX..... we may even start using it. Rust is an able C/C++ replacement. Even Linus, who's picky about what goes into the kernel tree, is allowing/supporting it. It really shouldn't be a burden to pick up for anyone who's done C/C++, IMHO.
It's also time to have a spec & alternative free implementation for Rust. Multiple compilers and standard library implementations for C is the reason why it's so ubiquitous in the embedded space and where Rust can do a lot of positive impact. As of now, Rust does not have a spec: https://users.rust-lang.org/t/where-is-the-rust-language-spe...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Hm? I'm not a particular fan of Microsoft, but his stated opinion here is reflective of a broader trend in software design, one that's coming from both companies and the open source community. I don't see the brainwashing.
The companies are the ones pushing this "security" stuff, because they want to stop us from doing things like jailbreaking --- and eventually running any software they don't approve of. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32905587
He used to write very useful utilities which did things that Microsoft didn't officially support or otherwise approve of. That's what made him famous and respected. Now he's using his position to amplify what is effectively a completely opposite viewpoint and betrayed what gave him that respect.
I'm no fan of MS now, and I guess neither Russinovich anymore, but they both used to be far less user-hostile.
Someone else downthread: "young developers can pick up Rust quite fast, and that makes it vastly easier than trying to find talented C/C++ developers." I hope so. I have a hypothesis that the big-O for language success is "How easily can new programmers learn it?" Nothing else matter. JavaScript was slow, but everyone learned it, so it got fast. Python still had bad tooling, but everyone learned it, so it got better.…
Why not just hire good people and ask them to learn C++. I mean how the heck did anyone actually pass this magic barrier of becoming a "C++ dev" in order to get hired as a C++ dev?
Long ago C++ made C a little bit more complex. Because there were already lots of C programmers that wasn't a big deal.
But then it didn't stop. Little by little C++ grew into a monstrosity. A lot of people went along. I gave up.
For new programmers to climb in 2-3 years a mountain that seasoned programmers took 15-20 years to climb is asking too much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dunno. Young devs can pick basic Rust constructs fast but when it comes to complicated stuff where performance is critical... There must be raw talent and lot of grind. IMO it's easier to write super complex stuff in C++ than in Rust as there are just too many cognitive things to keep in mind in Rust to even compile. C++ for talented folks makes life easier there. Like JavaScript, yet another language written for bad…
> Like JavaScript, yet another language written for bad to average developers to keep them from shooting themselves in the foot. I can't imagine anyone ever describing vanilla JavaScript this way.