They’re claiming the CTO of Azure doesn’t know enough about modern C++ to make the statement that we’re discussing.
Bold claim.
Bold claim.
Thing is in this case their advice regards the rifle.
It is nonsensical to say “the general can’t hit a moving target with the old rifle, so he should say nothing at all about weapons”. Which is what the person I replied to said.
> With all due respect, this is coming from a Win32 API C programmer who happens to save the code in files with .cpp extension. In other words, not familiar with modern C++.
Edit: Ah, you said "know enough about modern C++", so yes, I agree and was arguing in the wrong bit of the thread.
Nothing you’ve said contradicts what I said.
I think they might have been going for the ludicrous image of sticking a bayonette onto the front of a fixed gun emplacement.
And then other critics saying "Russinovich hasn't demonstrated skill with a machine gun so how can he say bayonettes are obsolete?"
No, but he does need to "know enough about modern C++ to make the statement that we’re discussing".
I could throw a bunch of examples further. For instance how the changes made to rifles because of what Generals thought their engagement ranges would be hampered the western forces who had to fight in Afghanistan.
You should also be skeptical of a General who suggests we go all in on Drone Warfare and not worry about rifles at all.
TLDR, person in a strategic role is rarely the best to assess tactical tools, and will often attribute strategic failures on their tactical tools.
They usually have not been in the trenches for a good while at least (could even be like 20+ years since they've done any development), and they take the ultimate decisions for their whole company for all kinds of languages and environments they have had no experience with... (like a CTO that used to do C back 20 years ago, now having a say in the use of Rust or Node).