do you think there's any possible other reason why game developers would choose to not use rust aside from some hypothetical jerkbag strawman that exists in your mind? is it possible that there's any practical reasons you haven't considered?
Ugh. That's not what I meant/said. What I meant was that there can exist a certain belief that there is only one way of doing things, when in fact there may be several. And there can be a belief that, because one has experience dealing with the most unsafe and bug ridden things, that experience is somehow necessary everywhere and all the time.
Perhaps you might try to address the question at hand, is there a certain amount of machismo re: C/C++ in game dev? Heck, everywhere?
> do you think there's any possible other reason why game developers would choose to not use rust aside from some hypothetical jerkbag strawman that exists in your mind?
Oh, totally. I'm reading the comments and looking for exactly these sorts of serious, interesting criticisms.
However, from what I've seen, some game dev criticisms have been pretty shallow from certain segments of that community. In another comment, I explain there are some game devs that have gone really deep on Rust and have really interesting things to say about it. My fear is simply that the more shallow sentiments of these high profile enfants terrible will take hold, because they often do.
FTR, I'm not talking about jblow. I acknowledge his criticisms are superficially similar to what I wrote. At the very least jblow is seriously engaging with the arguments re: Rust, like in this thread. As to whether he's actually seriously tried to learn Rust, I'm unsure. I hope he does.
And I'm not naming names not to be passive aggressive, but for self preservation. I don't know if you noticed, but games can have a really toxic fandom.
Or, perhaps when you say they act big about using pointers, do you mean that they act big about using pointers safely? Because that is different. That's a conversation I began declining to have because I no longer believe it's possible for a person who is trying to use C++ for a task, and has already decided it is the best available tool for that task, to have that conversation with pretty much anybody without it devolving into a pissing match.
There is a reason "I will never be able to get the control I need (but I don't know)" or "I'll have to use unsafe everywhere (but I haven't tried)" are anti-Rust tropes. It's possible for certain game dev patterns to be awkward in Rust (really interested in hearing more about these!), but these other criticisms smell less like highly relevant informed criticism, and more like one hasn't tried Rust, as much as surface-level, mole hill criticism of hypothetical or pathological instances of bad syntax do.
It isn't that one uses raw pointers. It's much more an attitude I've witnessed in younger programmers that if they're not doing it in C/C++, they're not doing the thing. It's about vibes as much as anything else, and I think, when their heros use their own vibe-level criticisms, they only reinforce that perspective.
> Or, perhaps when you say they act big about using pointers, do you mean that they act big about using pointers safely?
No, I wasn't thinking of that, but that's another part of it. And now that you mention it, "My code doesn't have any of these issues" can be yet another defensive tact.
Do you have something you'd like to offer the discussion?