• Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    It is so weird when people idolize programming languages. They are all flawed and they all encourage some bad design patterns. Just chill and pick yours.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Yeah, but that makes it sound like they’re all equal, and there hasn’t been any progression, which is untrue. You’re either insane or a historical reenactor if you write something new in COBOL.

      I think Rust is genuinely a huge leap forwards compared to C/C++. Maybe one day it will be shitty and obsolete, and at the very least it will become a boring standard option, but for now…

      • stingpie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        Rust is already obsolete, compared to Stingpie’s excellent assembly language, paired with object oriented programming!

        This is the SEALPOOP specification:

        1. an assembler must create a binary program which satisfies the programmer’s specifications.
        2. a compiler must translate the programmer’s code into SEALPOOP’s parallel instruction set source, which should be fed into the SEALPOOP PISS assembler.
      • kautau@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        I now want a community led historical reenactment of loose tie wearing software devs in the 60s where they are just chain smoking and banging out COBOL or Fortran punch cards

      • Vivendi@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        C++ when it was new was exactly like this. Rust still hasn’t had 30 years of legacy, all these Rust prophets will shit on it’s name in 15 years when they have to maintain huge codebases with it

        Besides, C++ is very likely to adopt memory safety

        • bufalo1973@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Now it seems the way is unique_ptr and shared_ptr. And std::any to replace void*. At least is what it seems to me.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yeah, that’s my guess too.

          As to whether C++ can update enough to steal it’s thunder, I feel less qualified to answer. It’d be pretty impressive if they managed to preserve backwards compatibility and do that at the same time, though.

      • jimmy90@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        i think it’s more like a “significant” step in language design that could make a “huge” leap in software quality

      • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        makes it sound like they’re all equal, and there hasn’t been any progression

        Programming peaked with Lisp (and SQL for database stuff).

        Every “progression” made since Lisp has been other languages adding features to (partially but not quite completely) do stuff that could already be done in Lisp, but with less well implemented (though probably with probably less parentheses).

          • akamar@feddit.cl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            You can use typed Lisp, there are plenty of them, from Typed Racket to Shen in their complexity. Or to make your own type system in 50-100 lines when you actually need

      • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        There have been “improvements” but fundamentally in my perspective, these “improvements” could be revealed to be a mistake down the line.

        Assembly has produced some insane pieces of software that couldn’t be produced like that with anything else.

        Maybe types in programming languages are bad because they are kinda misleading as the computer doesn’t even give a shit about what is data and what is code.

        Maybe big projects are just a bad idea in software development and any kind of dependency management is the wrong way.

        I like modern languages, types and libraries are nice to have, but I am not the student of the future but of the past.

        • verstra@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          That’s a valid argument, but a very weak one. If we are not completely sure something is an improvement in all aspects are we just to dismiss it altogether?

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Yeah, you could dismiss combustion engines for the same reason, or like, carpentry. You wouldn’t be wrong, they have caused problems down the line at various points (modern climate change, medieval deforestation), but you bet I’d still call them an advance on mule power, or on no carpentry.

            This is pretty much an nullification of the idea of technological progress existing at all, which is a kinda hot take.

            @Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de, so you can reply in the right place.

            • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              I see your perspective and I think you kinda miss my perspective which I am to blame for.

              I don’t say there weren’t improvements. I am saying that given the uncertainty of “goodness”. Maybe we shouldn’t idolize it. You can appreciate the attempt of creating memory safe code through a programing language without thinking the bare metal code should be written in that language. You can like a typeless easy to write language like Js without thinking desktop app should be written in it. You can like the idea behind functional programming while believing that any application is in the end about side effects and therefore a purely functional application impossible.

              You can approach the whole topic as an area of study and possible technological advances instead of a dogma.

              • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Oh, well I can agree with that.

                You can like the idea behind functional programming while believing that any application is in the end about side effects and therefore a purely functional application impossible.

                It’s a bit of a tangent, but if you’re doing something completely deterministic and non-interactive, like computing a digit of pi, it’s great in practice as well. I use Haskell semi-regularly for that kind of thing.

                You could argue printing the output is a side effect, but is a side effect followed by termination really “side”?

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      I probably wouldn’t describe them as flawed, because the goal wasn’t and couldn’t ever be perfection, so then everything is flawed, but then is it really a flaw? It sounds like more of an issue of what’s useful in what type of situation.

      • bufalo1973@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        That’s something I don’t get about doing things in a language that is not meant to be used for that (like JS for something other than web).

    • jbk@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Have you actually ever seen an example of such an annoying rust dev? Cause I haven’t, only a ton of people who see rust as their enemy number 1 because of such people. Those who are “annoyed” are way more annoying…

      • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        I have made experiences with annoying PHP devs and I don’t hate them.

        My critic wasn’t towards rust devs or any devs of any language but towards idolization of a language instead of studying the nature of those languages the flaws and advantages and use the best tool available or attempting to create a better tool.

      • ysjet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Yes, absolutely. Constantly, in fact.

        Rust the language is great.

        Rust the community makes me hate rust, never want anything to do with it, and actively advise people not to use Rust. Your community is so, so important to a programming language, because that’s who makes your documentation, your libraries, fills out the discords, IRC, and mailing lists. As a developer, any time you’re doing anything but rote boilerplate zombie work, you’re interacting with the community. And Rust has a small, but extremely vocal, section of their community that are just absolute shitheads.

        Maybe in 5-10 years when the techbros stop riding its’ dick and go do something else will Rust recover its reputation, but for now? Absolutely no.

    • demizerone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s a significant time investment for some, and they want to be reassured they picked the right camp. :D

      • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 month ago

        ironic that winamp is was built on open formats and widespread IP theft (music ripped and shared)… but they’re strangely prickly when it comes to their code.

        :|

        • exocortex@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 month ago

          The guy who wrote Winamp Sold it decades ago. So you should clarify who is defensive about their code :-) The original coder is really good - he also wrote the awesome AVS visualization plugin for Winamp which among other things utilizes a special programming language called “eel”. After selling Winamp he went on to create Reaper which also uses eel I think.

    • ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      I mean, it’s not Rust but QMMP has existed for years. You could do a rewrite of QMMP with no issues if you really wanted to.

  • bgschaid@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    How can a rewrite in a completely different language violate this license? There should also be a clause “Once you looked at the source code you must not write anything with similar functionality … in any programming language”

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 month ago

      Leaked Windows code made Wine and ReactOS devs anxious, since MS could sue over it. On the other hand, I’ve looked up the keycodes from the Linux kernel for X11 (it’s literally just PS/2 with the unused codes being used in place of the E0 keys), and they haven’t yet came after us.

      • xantoxis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        It made them nervous because someone might put parts of the original source into Wine. You can’t do that in a rewrite in a different language, it doesn’t even make sense. The thing the people in this screenshot are gloating about isn’t even relevant to this license.

        • offspec@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          It made them nervous for the same reason emulator devs don’t touch leaks with a ten foot pole, giving the megacorp any reason to argue your clean house reimplantation is anything but clean is just asking for trouble.

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    you may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked version of the software

    ok, i’m just gonna host it on my website for archival purposes and if someone happens to download it that’s not my fault

  • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    The license, even if it’s truly just to avoid rust (for whatever dumbass reason they have), is enough to me to hardpass on the entire project.

  • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    No distribution, but he didn’t say no distributing a language parser to change it into rust and then microcompile a new executable on the spot.

    Tell me you are having a midlife crisis over not wanting to change over from the programming language you grew up mastering without telling me you are having a midlife crisis over not wanting to change over from the programming language you grew up mastering.

  • DumbAceDragon@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    That’s a lot of words for “I don’t understand the borrow checker”

    In all seriousness, yeah rust users are annoying, but I think rust is a welcome change over C/C++

    • zaphodb2002@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 month ago

      Hey I’m both an annoying Rust user and I also don’t understand the borrow checker. I just put & and * in front of things until it works.

      • howrar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Same. I keep thinking back to my time TAing for an intro programming course and getting students who just add random braces until their code compiles. That’s me right now with Rust pointers.

    • 5C5C5C@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Speaking as an annoying Rust user, you’re being bigoted. I’m annoying, but the vast majority of Rust users are normal people who you wouldn’t even know are using Rust.

      Don’t lump all the others in with me, they don’t deserve that.

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      While the borrow checker has its downsides, so its legitimate uses. A few people in the D community were thinking about implementing it as a library.

      • DumbAceDragon@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Didn’t know D still had an active community, that’s pretty awesome. Wonder if someone has ever worked on a borrow checker for Nim.

        • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          D seems to getting traction yet again, and some stuff might get better (D3, new GC, new standard library, etc).

    • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      What is this abi and standard calling methods you speak off? Are you a rust-non-believer or some shit! Rewrite it all in rust, no questions asked!

      ( i too like the ideas of rust, but without a decent abi or not constantly changing interface, its useless to me. I dont want to rebuild all code, including libraries every time i update 1 library in my application )

      • teolan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        You’re aware that Rust gives you access to the full C ABI?

        What language are you going to use instead that has a better ABI story? Swift? Or maybe a dynamic language like Python?

        • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I know that exists, but whats the point of that? You loose all advantages of rust when you use the library then because it cant predict application state with the library code. There is a reason all those rust libraries are compiled locally when you compile a rust application. Its a major lacking point for rust, and as long as it lacks that its dead in the water for big projects.
          Again, i like strong type stuff and i like the ideas of rust but it is not grown up enough for me

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            It’s a lacking point yes but unless you want to use a closed-source library it’s also a non-issue, which is why it has never been given priority. It’s not like language semantics would prevent portable dylibs it’s that there’s more important fronts to improve Rust on. A proper solution would take quite some engineering effort, and do note that C doesn’t have a proper solution either it just lets you link stuff up willy-nilly and then crash. Rust is actually in a better position to implement a proper solution than C is.

            The “big project” thing is a red herring given that rust compiles incrementally. I know it is technically possible to not rebuild everything from scratch in C but the code has to specifically written to not break assumptions your build system makes while rust is happily re-using the compilation results for one function in a file while discarding those of another because actual dependencies are actually tracked. Out of the box.

            Speaking of large Rust projects and proper type-safe linking: The WebAssembly folks are hashing out their Component Model which isn’t really limited to compiling to wasm, in principle: Big picture it’s a way to programmatically specify ABIs and even derive ABI translation code. That might be a good option as a rust-specific solution would be, well, rust-specific and when you engineer something that can support multiple versions of a language you can just as well engineer a bit more and have something cross-language.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Are you suggesting OP write a C application and then compile it as Rust? I’m not a pro, but that sounds kind of janky.

          • teolan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 month ago

            I’m suggesting building a Rust library and exposing a C ABI. That’s what rsvg does for example.

            • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Oh. There’s a still Rust-y way to do this? Nevermind.

              OP wanted stability and predictability. I suppose we’ll see how entrenched one library can become.

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 month ago

                The Rustinomicon has a chapter on it. The basics are quite simple: Declare non-opaque types to use layout matching the C ABI, export/import functions, some wibbles around name mangling. Option<T> vs. null pointers. Where things get a bit more involved is unwinding, but then you’re at the end of it, nothing should be shocking to anyone having written C.

                As to how Rusty it is… not very. I mean Rust has first-class FFI support, but the way FFI stuff is written is necessarily unidiomatic because you’re basically writing C in Rust syntax and you won’t get out of declaring your own functions `unsafe’ before you read the rest of the Rustinomicon to understand what properties you need to ensure because the nice and shiny parts of Rust assume them.

                • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  Hmm. So I guess it comes down to what OP is doing. They either want to write a Rust library, or something that uses a Rust library that may not be standardised or even exist yet. If the latter, they should stick with C.