The dash - vs underscore _ is also a common “problem” with CLI arguments --file-name, that are mapped to variable names file_name.

This is one of the reasons why I don’t like short variable names, especially single letters (unless for very narrow use and obvious like i).

For code bases where this is a thing, you could use greps context lines: grep ---before-context 1 "^main"

Nobody cares if their disk utilisation tool is in Rust.

Wrong. You don’t care. There are people who care. Not every information must meet your personal needs in order to be mentioned in the title. Edit: Also we are in a programming community, so this makes you double wrong.

24

Maybe a better place to ask would be one of the following places:

• https://beehaw.org/c/technology
• https://beehaw.org/c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

For your question, are you talking about streaming videos? At least on YouTube videos are at 60 fps. The higher the fps, the more bandwidth and space is required on the servers. Therefore YouTube will limit 4k at 60 fps to paying customers. And for the casual smartphone videos, isn’t 30 fps at 4k not the default? People like to have higher resolution, because they don’t understand what fps probably is (I mean the non tech mommies).

Are you talking about movies? Movies often aren’t filmed at 60 fps, therefore it would be lot of waste to stream them at 60. I’m not sure if this is still true with modern films though. I didn’t keep up with tech much.

Does your Antivirus or Firewall prevents it from accessing the internet maybe?

I don’t mean this in a toxic way, but this is probably the worst idea I have seen yet with Ai in programming. People should use less Ai, and learn more how to program. It’s better in the long term.

https://github.com/AZHenley/Mirror

Is the language and interpretation predictable and exact? If you install a newer version of the Ai, can the exact same code behavior be guaranteed? What’s the benefit over using Ai tools that generate code in a static language, instead leaving it to be interpreted?

This is a lot going on there. I’m thankful the blog poster did a content warning, I truly appreciate that. It’s a bit too hard subjects to read for me, so not going into details now.

BTW I’m on beehaw and your reply looks like this to me, in case if it helps to see if it federates the way you was expecting it:

If you think that’s WTH-worthy, then you definitely shouldn’t read the /r/cpp thread (sample comments: [1][2]).

(edit to see if this will federate)

At the top of the blog post:

CONTENT WARNING

Unfortunately, this post has mentions of rape and sexual assault.

What the hell?

Thanks, lol. I hope they realize soon that Rust is not forced to be used. Also the US government didn’t even talk about Rust only, but memory safe languages and listed Rust as an example.

There’s no such thing as a language that’s advantages outweigh the security risks of rushed development to convert decades of tested code.

Who said or suggested that anyway? Other than bringing this up now. Who says to convert decades of tested code to rushed code of new language?? Do people read the stuff before they reply?

Google is using Rust more and more in Android, Chromium. So its in Googles direct interest to have a better interoperability between Rust and C++. https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/31/rust_google_c/ and https://www.techradar.com/pro/google-hails-move-to-rust-for-huge-drop-in-memory-vulnerabilities are articles talking why Google likes using Rust.

with a generous $1M contribution from Google

1M only? Google pays 500M (half a billion Dollar) to their rival Mozilla Firefox. Each year. I don’t want to make this a Mozilla thread, just want to say they could have done more than just a million Dollar for Rust. Given that Google uses Rust as well.

But there is context to it:

The report on Product Security Bad Practices warns software manufacturers about developing “new product lines for use in **service of critical infrastructure or [national critical functions] **NCFs in a memory-unsafe language (eg, C or C++) where there are readily available alternative memory-safe languages that could be used is dangerous and significantly elevates risk to national security, national economic security, and national public health and safety.”

It’s for new products that are very important to critical infrastructure and need to be safe as possible. The article writer seem not to be aware of this context:

Take Rust in Linux, for example. Even with support from Linux’s creator, Linus Torvalds, Rust is moving into Linux at a snail’s pace.

Because Linux is the biggest software in the entire world and they do lot of stuff their own way. Rust is integrated slowly for future new projects. It makes sense to move in snail pace. The government doesn’t suggest the Linux project to stop using C entirely. The government “recommends” to start new projects in memory safe languages, if it is a critical software. That makes sense to me.

You see, people who’ve spent years and sometimes decades mastering C don’t want to master the very different Rust. They don’t see the point.

No, totally wrong. C programmers in Linux do not NEED to learn or master Rust. They just need to cooperate. The problem is, that some C programmers refuse to cooperate with Rust. They just want Rust to disappear. That has nothing to do with mastering the language. They refuse to make changes to their C code, so it can cooperate with Rust code via bindings.

After all, they can write memory-safe code in C, so why can’t you?

Nonsense argument, and false too. If that was the case, why do we have memory safe languages? Clearly people make mistake, old and new. Besides Linux is not the only software in the world.

Converting existing large codebases to memory-safe languages can be an enormous undertaking.

Nobody says old code should be rewritten in Rust. Neither the government, nor the Rust programmers in Linux suggest that. It’s not about rewriting code in memory-safe languages, its about new projects.

Either this article is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding. Or I misunderstand the article or government. I don’t know anymore…

it depends. Its not like every user and question requires a new account. There was a time where these companies had a Reddit group instead Discord. Its the same effort to create an account one time, but then it can be reused. Also there is this login with existing accounts (like Google or other methods), as a secondary option.

If we are speaking about a dedicated forum, that’s another thing. But since I gave up Reddit and because Fediverse is small, I started back creating accounts for forums. But only if really want to be part of it. But yes, agreed this is not convenient and Discord has a plus point here. Also Discord is integrated in other services as well (I think on game consoles, not sure).

I see its pros and cons and why its successful. Also there is no better alternative for what it does. I’m just critical about the negative impact of it. I’m so glad that StackOverflow is not close like Discord.

Also for people its often an embarrassment to ask certain questions, because they think its a stupid question. In a forum, everyone can see it and comeback years later (which is a good thing btw, but for some embarrassing). A chat is forgets much quicker and better.

I think asking niche questions in a forum is very helpful too, otherwise you will only find common questions. Actually the niche questions answered and maybe corrected over time is very useful in forums. Because in a chat often niche questions requires the right person to be in the right group at the right time.

Especially Discord is bad, because it cannot be indexed by web search engines. And the entire structure is not really good for long term, compared to dedicated posts in forums.

C++ innovates often first and adapts it into mainstream. And its kind of a swiss-army knife. You don’t need to use and learn everything, just pick what you need. Unless you need to get into an old existing code base…

Just an idea: The language could be divided into multiple standard levels, where each level has more features and functionality. It would be essentially a “restricted”, “standard” and “full” version of the language, where full is basically what it is now and the others are constrained versions with less functionality (no multiple inheritance and what not rules). But at this point, if you don’t use the language in its full, why bother with it at all? Just thinking a bit…

Rust: The Phantom Menace