systemd
Interesting. So they did it two years ago for the lols… i mean for the u8"😀"s*…which wasn’t even really needed as one of the PR comments pointed out.
* Yes, the mission creep is so bad the shit show that is systemd has emoticons.
Multi-threading support
Who stopped using pthreads/windows threads for this?
Unicode support
Those who care use icu anyway.
memccpy()
First of all, 😄.
Secondly, it’s a library feature, not a language one.
Thirdly, it existed forever in POSIX.
And lastly, good bait 😄.
whats so bad about Various syntax changes improve compatibility with C++
It’s bad because compiler implementations keep adding warnings and enabling them by default about completely valid usage that got “deprecated” or “removed” in “future versions of C” I will never use or give a fuck about. So my CI runs which all minimally have -Wall -Werror can fail with a compiler upgrade for absolutely irrelevant stuff to me. If it wasn’t for that, I wouldn’t even know about these changes’ existence, because I have zero interest in them.
Those who like C++ should use C++ anyway. They can use the C+classes style if they like (spoiler alert: they already do).
I can understand. But why would you not use newer C versions, if there is no compatibility with older version “required”?
Because C doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and Rust exists. Other choices exist too for those who don’t like Rust.
My C projects are mature and have been in production for a long time. They are mostly maintenance only, with new minor features added not so often, and only after careful consideration.
Still interested in knowing what relevant projects will be using C23.
That’s good and all, but we all explicitly pass -std=gnu99 (or -std=c99 if you don’t care about MSYS2 compat) in our build scripts buddy 😉
Okay, maybe not all all. But you get the idea.
Are there any relevant projects who use the increasingly C+±infested newer versions of the language?
Good thing there is no long list of signatories in this one. I had to double-check the open letter when it came out to make sure no one fake-included me there.
Hope the nu crowd are winning their arguments hard… in their own echo chambers. Because no one else is going to even feel their presence outside of them.
With hyper-threading and preemption in mind, maybe it’s concurrency all the way down 😎 . But we should definitely keep this on the down low. Don’t want the pesky masses getting a whiff of this.
The only time I took a gander on their repo, I saw the main guy asking ChatGPT how to implement something, and pointing the main dev at the answer.
Also, the pay-per-PR approach, while commendable on the surface, has a very high potential of unwanted behavior sneaking in, intentionally or otherwise, especially when combined with such blasé approach to coding and review.
This is perhaps a case where Rust’s superiority lead to questionable net gains. In the sense that if it wasn’t for Rust, such an approach would probably never have produced a product that appears, for all intents and purposes, to be perfectly functional, performant, and stable (presumably, I never used it). Rust allowed here, despite the “hard language” stereotype, a Lego model of development to work. But is that at the end of the day a good thing? That’s an open and nuanced question.
But hey, it’s all open source. If (the collective) you don’t like it, fork it and fix it, or pay for the audit, or use something else. Don’t expect anyone to shed a tear for your alleged quandary, or become a soldier in your witch hunt.
🤣
I don’t know, and I don’t want to get personal. But that’s usually a sign of someone who doesn’t even code (at non-trivial levels at least)*, and thinks programming languages are like sport clubs, developers are like players contracted to play for one and only one club, and every person in the internet gantry need to, for some reason, pick one club (and one club only) to be a fanboy of. Some people even center their whole personality around such fanboyism, and maybe even venture into fanaticism.
So each X vs Y language discussion in the mind of such a person is a pre-game or a pre-season discussion, where the game or season is an imaginary competition such people fully concoct in their minds, a competition that X or Y will eventually and decidedly “win”.
* Maybe that was an exaggeration on my part. Some junior developers probably fall into these traps too, although one might expect, or maybe hope, that their view wouldn’t be that detached from reality.
I’m hoping to finally finish and send out a delayed new release for one of my older and mature CLI tools this weekend. It’s written in C btw 😄
I hope that someone in the 40 comments i don’t have time to read right now has pointed out that the premise of OP is flawed for the simple reason that Rust hit v1.0 in 2015, while Zig is still nowhere near that milestone in 2024.
So we are not even talking about the same “future” period from the start.
So, no need to get to the second false premise in OP, which is limiting a “future” period to one successful dominating language only. Nor is there a need to go beyond these premises and discuss actual language details/features.
Bringing vimperator/pentadactyl back! That would be the dream.
Anyway, last time I tested it (~3 weeks ago), servo was not very usable still with the few websites I tried. Hopefully it gets, at least partway, there in a few months.
The maintenance is too high.
acquired knowledge spotted
I will let you on a little secret.
The best “support” you can get is support from upstreams directly (I’m involved in both sides of that equation). But upstreams will often only “support” you when you 1. run the latest stable version 2. the upstream source code wasn’t patched willy-nilly by the packager (your distro).
So the best desktop linux experience comes with using rolling distro that gives you such packages, with Arch being the most prominent example.
The acquired knowledge that argues stability and tells you otherwise is a meme.
would you argue that it’s impossible to write a"hello, world" program in C++
bent as expected
This proposal is just a part of a damage control campaign. No (supposedly doable) implementation will ever see the light of day. Ping me when this is proven wrong.
The only (arguably*) baseless claim in that quote is this part:
it’s theoretically possible to write memory-safe C++
Maybe try to write more humbly and less fanatically, since you don’t seem to be that knowledgable about anything (experienced in other threads too).
* It’s “theoretically possible” to write memory-safe assembly if we bend contextual meanings enough.
Because non-open ones are not available, even for a price. Unless you buy something bigger than the “standard” itself of course, like a company that is responsible for it or having access to it.
There is also the process of standardization itself, with committees, working groups, public proposals, …etc involved.
Anyway, we can’t backtrack on calling ISO standards and their likes “open” on the global level, hence my suggestion to use more precise language (“publicly available and sharable”) when talking about truly open standards.
The term open-standard does not cut it. People should start using “publicly available and sharable” instead (maybe there is a better name for it).
ISO standards for example are technically “open”. But how relevant is that to a curious individual developer when anything you need to implement would require access to multiple “open” standards, each coming with a (monetary) price, with some extra shenanigans [archived] on top.
IETF standards however are actually truly open, as in publicly available and sharable.
It implies that the value of their policy work is significantly below…
It’s always safe to assume that value to be negative unless proven otherwise actually.
Monthly Reminder: High or low, all Linux usage stats are fake.
BTW, the snippet I pointed to, and the whole match block, is not incoherent. It’s useless.
Alright. Explain this snippet and what you think it achieves:
tokio::task::spawn_blocking(move || -> Result { Ok(walkdir) })
Is this going to be re-posted every month?
Anyway, I’ve come to know since then that the proposal was not a part of a damage control campaign, but rather a single person’s attempt at proposing a theoretical real solution. He misguidedly thought that there was actually an interest in some real solutions. There wasn’t, and there isn’t.
The empire are continuing with the strategy of scamming people into believing that they will produce, at some unspecified point, complete magical
mushroomsguidelines and real specified and implemented profiles.The proposal is destined to become perma-vaporware. The dreamy guidelines are going to be perma-WIP, the magical profiles are going to be perma-vapordocs (as in they will never actually exist, not even in theoretical form), and the bureaucracy checks will continue to be cashed.
So not only there was no concrete strike back, it wasn’t even the empire that did it.