You are not fighting the C++ compiler or showing why the C++ compiler might be annyoing. You are introducing a bug by poorly using a library (which has nothing to do with writing and compiling C++). Ergonomics I believe are fine?
I'm struggling hard trying to understand what or if your comment has anything to do with GP's comment. Perhaps you wanted to tell that the Rust compiler might have stopped you from producing a buggy program, but again, it has nothing to do with GP's comment.
I think 0xdeafbeef is roughly recreating the first code snippet from the article (which is one of the things diath is complaining about) in C++ to show that the compiler should produce an error or else undefined behavior could occur on resize.
What I see when producing code with AI (C/C++, Qt) is that often it gives output for different versions of a given library. It's like it can't understand (or doesn't know) that a given function is now obsolete and needs to use another method. Sometimes it can be corrected.
I think there will be a point in which humans will no longer be motivated to produce enough material for the AI to update. Like, why would I write/shot a tutorial or ask/answer a question in a forum if people are now going directly to ask to some AI?
And since AI is being fed with human knowledge at the moment, I think the quantity of good material out there (that was used so far for training) is going to slow down. So the AI will need to wait for some repos to be populated/updated to understand the changes. Or it will have to read the new documentation (if any), or understand the changes from code (if any).
All this if it wasn't the AI to introduce the changes itself.
Sorry to ask, but couldn't it be solved with cargo? I hear all the time about the benefits of Rust tooling and zero-cost abstractions.
Why can't a driver just pull/include the latest-dma-bindings crate and glue the gap with zero-cost abstractions?
If kernel DMA code/API changes, then nothing breaks in the kernel (hopefully) and the "Rust devs will quickly solve the changes" theory can be really proven and tested by quickly updating the bindings AND the updating the drivers.
On the other side, being told what is "bad", what is "good", "right" and wrong", what is "dark" and what is "bright", what I should do and think and why I don't have such good morals, in the past 15 years, was so exhausting...
Don't worry about it. It's an opinion. Agree or disagree with it. But to feel morally inferior because of someone else's opinion isn't an argument. It's revealing that you have issues with self esteem. If you want to put forth an argument about why he's wrong, or crossing a line, or making an unrealistic proposition that everyone everywhere should stop using a word or phrase, that's absolutely a valid response. But people making the claim of "virtue signalling" are not making an argument. They're making a baseless ad hominem attack.
I did ctrl+f searching for "opinion", "I believe", "I think", etc. I can't find any reference to "opinions".
I read the post as the author decribing facts and imparting instructions of what we should do ("It's time to do X", "The cargo cult metaphor should be avoided") because they believe their knowledge/opinions/morals/beliefs are better than mine, and somehow they can dictate what to do; how should I feel, what should I think.
Otherwise I am oppressing, contributing to oppress, perpetuating something, [insert other accusations].
As in the past 15 years. It's enough already.
The real question is why the author is doing this? Is it ego? Money? Clicks? Pure and true altruism?
And here "virtue signalling" comes as a possible valid answer too.
The context is a personal blog. You don't have to say the word "opinion" explicitly. If it's on your blog, it's your opinion.
The problem with saying it's virtue signaling is that when you resort to ad hominem attacks, you're conceding the argument. Attacking character concedes the argument being made. Well I don't concede. I have a good argument against it. My argument is that nobody cares about the etymology or morality of a word. They care about its meaning and context. People don't learn language by reading etymologies. Nobody cares one way or the other about the morality of the first person who said it or popularized it especially if it happened a hundred years ago. We don't need to look up the etymology of every word or phrase before using it, and asking people to do that is unrealistic and unreasonable.
Is it virtue signaling? I don't know, and I don't care. His character doesn't matter to me. It doesn't affect whether or not his idea is a good one. It's a bad idea, and leave it there.
People should be advocating for their own values and morals. To be an ethical person is to understand your values and do the work to apply them in your everyday life.
"People should be advocating for their own values and morals. To be an ethical person is to understand your values and do the work to apply them in your everyday life."
Pablo Escobar could say that he understand his values (whatever they were; maybe money and power over all other values?) and that he works to apply them every day. He advocated for his own values and morals (ruthlessly). This doesn't make him an Ethical person.
A conversation about subjective morality is tangential to your original comment and the conversation we're having, but its odd to bring it up as if you are aware of the concept of subjective morality you kind of run head-first into why advocating and applying your values is important.
And more to the point, you're not believable. Are you really going to say that because Pablo Escobar may have had a set of values and acted on those values, we have to throw away that whole idea?
Hitler was really fond of his pet dog, does having a pet dog make someone evil?
In any case, here's what I dislike about your original comment, and what it seems to express.
Instead of engaging with the ideas and values presented in the article, you feel back on attacking the very idea of expressing ideas and values. You know that's a ridiculous position, I know you do, but it's easier to do that than it is to actually engage.
> Seems archaic today ... run in mere kilobytes of RAM
There is an entire industry that does pretty much that... today. They might run in flash instead of RAM, but still, a few kilobytes.
Probably there are more embedded devices out there than PCs. PIC, AVR, MSP, ARM, custom archs. There might be one of those right now under your hand, in that thing you use to move the cursor.
No one can deny that kernel devs have a valid complain and concerns. Of course Rust and Linux can work together and is feasible, on paper, and everybody wants to see it in the mainline someday.
But in reality working for and with the kernel is more than just writing code. And being realistic, you wouldn't base months worth of work on the hands and the will of some coder that may or may not have your interests in mind that week. Would you?
I have 1 one year old boy and I often think about how should I behave. While the Santa issue is trivial to me, I decided I will lie, or hide the truth for that matter, about some topics to protect his innocence until he's mature enough to understand.
> your kids will know that there are things you will lie to them about
And that's part of growing up. I now know that the dog I barely remember (when I was almost 3 years old) didn't "went with his mom that came to pick him up one day", and understanding why they lied is part of growing up. Instead of triggering a loss of trust now I can say "I see what you did there, now I understand".
Yes - but I agree with your dog story - kids can't really understand about a death. Its not a lie - its an attempt to explain at the level you were at when you were 3.
Its a different thing to go along with the social convention of tricking the younger generation, and allowing these external conventions to cleave the trust between a parent and child.
FWIW, we tried to explain my grandfather's passing to our then 3.5 year old without lying, and she herself crafted a story that "he's with the ants", and now, after listening to a truckload of astronomy songs, she says he's "in space" and "fell into black hole". We can see she pattern-matches the event to any other concept of "lost and not coming back" she comes across.
Because it is. And is a statement I agree 100% being a +20-years C developer with a hardwired C parser in my brain: Rust, Zig and some (most?) newer C++ syntax is contorted at minimum (to my eyes).
I wish the only difference were about just new operators, but just the fact that the type has to come after the variable declaration is awful to me (also for returning types in functions declarations). One can tell me 100 reasons why Rust does it this way and they'll probably be all true and right, and you can call me all sort of things but this kind of new syntax puts me off right away.
I'm struggling hard trying to understand what or if your comment has anything to do with GP's comment. Perhaps you wanted to tell that the Rust compiler might have stopped you from producing a buggy program, but again, it has nothing to do with GP's comment.
reply