One specific example I encountered was ndarray. I couldn’t figure out how to make a function take an array and an arrayslice without rewriting the function for both types. This could be because I’m novice with the language, but it didn’t seem obvious. I ended up giving up after trying to dig through the docs for a few hours and went back to C++.

Maybe for your use cases that’s OK, but there are many situations where the size and ease of upgrading provided by shared libraries is worthwhile. For example it would suck to need to push a 40+ GB binary to a fleet of systems with a poor or unreliable internet connection. You could try to mitigate this sort of thing by splitting the application up into microservices, but that adds complexity, and isn’t always a viable tradeoff if maximizing compute efficiency is also a concern.

In my understanding, you can’t interface with the C abi without using an unsafe block.

The main issue I have with rust is the lack of a rust abi for shared libraries, which makes big dependencies shitty to work with. Another is a lot of the big, nearly ubiquitous libraries don’t have great documentation, what’s getting put up on crates.io is insufficient to quickly get an understanding of the library. It’d also be nice if the error messages coming out of rust analyzer were as verbose as what the compiler will give you. Other than that it’s a really interesting language with a lot of great ideas. The iterator paradigm is really convenient, and the way enums work leads to really expressive code.

The company i was with was still using clearcase when those were popular. I’ve used github, gitlab, and bitbucket as git based software forges professionally. In fairness Github is way better than the clearcase process we used.

I’ve used several different forges over my career and github is the worst by far. The navigation is clunky, the search never searches the stuff you want to look at without menu hopping, the recent repos doesn’t include half the stuff you made a PR to recently, CI integration kinda sucks compared to gitlab or bitbucket.

I don’t really think it’s any of those things in particular. I think the problem is there are quite a few programmers who use OOP, especially in Java circles, who think they’re writing good code because they can name all the design patterns they’re using. It turns out patterns like Factory, Model View Controller, Dependency Injection etc., are actually really niche, rarely useful, and generally overcomplicate an application, but there is a subset of programmers who shoehorn them everywhere. I’d expect the same would be said about functional programming if it were the dominant paradigm, but barely anyone writes large applications in functional languages and thus sane programmers don’t usually come in contact with design pattern fetishists in that space.

IMO the syntax is fine except for the borrow checker shit that just looks arcane. The fact that everything cargo drags in is statically linked really turns me off the language for anything serious. It’s really unfortunate because I’d otherwise put some time into learning it, but it seems like the rust foundation is fine with this (ridiculous IMO) workflow.

Tbf, does anyone actually “like” C++?

Yeah, for this reason I would pretty much never encourage exceptions in Python over some other form of error handling. It’s so frustrating when called code throws some random exceptions that are completely undocumented. This is one of the few things Java got (sort of) right

I wouldn’t recommend it. The Git documentation itself doesn’t recommend rebase for more than moving a few unpushed commits to the front of a branch you are updating. Using it by default instead of merge requires you to use --force-push as part of your workflow which can lead to confusing situations when multiple developers end up commiting to the same branch, and at worst can lead to catastrophic data loss. The only benefit is a cleaner history graph, which is rarely used anyway, and you can always make the history graph easier to read with a gui without incuring any of the problems of rebase.

Under this explanation, the AGPL wouldnt qualify as an open source license, since you must distribute the source if you provide a modified version as a network service.

Thats because in government products many unsafe languages shittier than C(++) are used, like Ada, Fortran, and Cobol. It wouldn’t surprise me if most of the code running on products for government use werent written in C or C++

Nothing really, the JVM has a pretty troubled history that would really make me hesitate to call it “safe”. It was originally built before anyone gave much thought to security and that fact plauges it to the present day.

Pretty crazy to reccomend Java as a secure alternative.

This would be so nice in a mainstream language, I wonder if it would be possible with rust’s macro system?

If your cloud provider decides to screw you you’re gonna have to put physical infrastructure together no matter what license their software is distributed under.

I don’t understand why you’d be fixing unit tests he broke during his pr. It seems like he might be bullying you? Maybe discuss with your manager.

Unironically me