Subsentient

... what floating point determinism? Sorry, couldn't help myself. Even in the cases where it's deterministic, the implementation differences across hardware AND software make such a prospect downright hilarious to me.

I'm not too active in the Temple because of work, but you will only generally find atheists, agnostics, or at worst "woo lords" in TST. Such irrational thought is frowned upon by TST, so it is discouraged. TST does lean a bit left, but as the old offensive saying goes, "reality has a liberal bias". They do not, however, typically look kindly upon SJWs. Someone tried that once and was fired by TST itself.

You will hear people say "Hail Satan!" a lot, but it's meant more in the sense of what Satan stands for from the Satanic viewpoint, which is, among many other things, primarily freedom and knowledge.

I do believe in their tenets myself, I think they're remarkably well distilled principles. I think the first and fourth tenets are especially important for the current times.

I think what you'll find a lot of Satanists believe is "an it harm none, do what ye will", and you'll find that they take that principle more seriously than others who espouse that, such as Wicca.

I'm a secular Satanist. I believe Christianity and Abrahamic religions are inherently unethical. I have very strong utilitarian principles that run even deeper, which is ultimately what pushed me to Satanism. I'm a member of the Satanic temple, but in some ways it's more of a political organization than religious. I'm open to the possible existence of the paranormal, but I do not trust it at all and would question the intentions of such entities.

May the Dark Lord remove the veil from your eyes and show you the true malevolence of the one you call God. Hail Satan!

My advice is for the OP to make his build system GPLv3 licensed and sue anyone who willfully violates that license.

Open source still has lots of life left in it, but copyleft licenses are now increasing in importance, and the days of letting it slide when a company violates your license are now gone.

To decide on what license you want, ask yourself, do you want this to improve software as a whole, or do you want this to improve FOSS? Does the image of proprietary software benefiting from your work soothe or anger you? Nowadays, it's becoming increasingly important to choose the latter. If you don't care what happens, you can license it as MIT or something. There are still valid cases for that.

No password authentication? That's a problem to me. I use keys for everything serious, but sometimes I want to have a Raspberry Pi with the root password "derp". :^(

Rust is a good language overall, but it has some serious flaws that it seems those in control of Rust have no interest in fixing.

For example, it is possible to make the borrow checker accept self-referential structures, but nobody has done the immovable type etc work required for that. Which means, for non-trivial data structures, you need to either reach for unsafe or Rc/Arc. I write a lot of very multithreaded code, so for me it's almost always Arc, which means paying for atomics. And since the Drop trait takes an exclusive &mut reference, you must use fugly nested structs to prevent UB if you have shared mutable pointers you need deleted automatically.

I'd recommend learning Rust, but I'd also strongly recommend that you willfully push the limits of the language. Rust needs to be stretched out to accommodate more contemporary programming constructs, and you can help with that. Also, stay away from the core team and organization, they're poisonous as hell. I'd recommend donating to gccrs to help alternate implementations.

On the positive side, you do still end up with an awful lot of zero-cost safe code, and Rust is pretty nice to work in once you actually understand it.

I'll throw my Arkanoid/breakout clone written in C and ncurses into the mix. https://universe2.us/bricktick.html

Ewwwwwwwww. Get your false hope bullshit out of here.

Lol. Yeah that totally sounds like a great idea that is going to end super well and not backfire at all!

Good. If Rust's management falls apart, the language will become more decentralized, like it should be. I was always very, very nervous having a systems language totally controlled by only one organization. Hopefully this will result in a fork of rustc and some new interest in gccrs.

I really like Python. It's what I reach for when I need something working quickly. I have a whole folder of one-off python scripts I wrote over years that I occasionally still use.

For very large projects, however, I advise against it. The dynamic type system bites you a lot in my experience. I prefer static typing.

Well considering the author of the article also authored a series of "Hopepunk" books that she shamelessly plugs at the end of the article, I think I'll be staying with my cynical misanthropy, since she just validated it. Thanks.

Ahh, well. All I can say. Is.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

/s

Oh I already do assume that! That's why I have such an overflowing social life with lots of mutually fulfilling relationships! /s

Sadly I've come to much the same conclusion as this article. Nobody has any idea what the fuck they're doing, especially the people who think they do. I certainly don't know wtf I'm doing.

Me: Stupid? Probably not quite, at least in most ways. Lazy? Guilty. Possibly insane? Remove the "possibly".

And this is why I'm never going to move to Europe. My jokes would be considered "obscene" or "indecent" or something and I'd be thrown in prison. At least here in the States, for now, the government is letting the private companies perform the censorship, and not imprisoning people for tasteless humor.

Or you could just be sincere and genuine, and leave the Machiavellian mind games up to the corpses of the questionable philosophers. I work for a small company that makes video servers, I'm the lead developer currently. I still end up having to talk to customers sometimes, and while it hasn't always gone great, at least I can say that I was sincere and honest in my efforts to be helpful. Is that so hard?

I see where you're coming from, and I can see that being true, but that has a steep price that I personally am not willing to pay. Objective truth matters to me a lot, and if I'm a bit more of a downer because of it, so be it. Just my 2¢, but I'd be very interested in how many other people here feel the same way.

You're an interesting man, if a bit grandiose. I'm currently stoned, so I'll ask a weird question. What about us doomsayers who know in their hearts that it'll all fall apart in the end, but are cognizant that they themselves don't care enough about their safety to do anything differently?

Boogers

I personally prefer QtWebSockets. I've used libwebsockets before, but I found the API error prone and crusty, and ended up eventually converting it to QWebSockets. That turned out to be a good move.

Of course we are!

It's been obvious for years, at least to anyone in my circle. Even my boss has said as much. We can feel it in our bones. Things are getting worse, not better, and it's accelerating.

We did this to ourselves, with our own greed and indifference, and now it's time to reap our rewards. Even now, rich nations are hoarding vaccines for themselves.

We have learned nothing and we will learn nothing, until it is too late.

I write Rust too. I like Rust for the mostpart, though there's some issues with the language that really wind me up, mostly to do with the unsafe/safe code boundary.

If you want full control and easier interfacing with the OS, C++ is probably a little better, but Rust is definitely a little easier to work with once you learn the language.

C++ has plenty of issues, but it's really not that bad, especially modern C++. It's a huge language with tons of features, many of which you'll never use, but as far as writing C++, really not that bad. I've written a lot of C++ over the years, and I've also written a lot of vanilla C. I can tell you that you can definitely get a new project up and running much faster in C++ than in C.

Sorry, I was getting a bit frustrated, because I kept repeating my position, and you kept saying it affected semantics, whereas if it's UB either way, it hasn't really affecting semantics officially. Yeah I'm done too. I don't enjoy arguing, and Rust in particular never brings out the best in me.

Yes, it is about optimization. By your own admission, rustc allows you to set -C opt-level, and that would probably change semantics to the desired, but at significantly worse performance.

You don't seem to understand the concept of undefined behavior. What I'm trying to say is that even if rustc generates the correct output, the code could still officially be declared UB, just as it is now in debug mode. If it breaks logic that relies on the exclusivity of &mut, well, that's what UB does, it breaks things.

It is entirely an optimization option.

You're right that I think it would be nice if you could have multiple &muts created from raw pointers, but I'm not asking for that. The reason these things are issues at all is because Rust uses these references for things like RAII (e.g. &mut self in drop()), and there's no way to use raw pointers instead. If Rust provided a way to use raw pointers more easily in the places you need them, this would be a non-issue. But right now, the unsafe/safe boundary is very dangerous in Rust, so dangerous that I'm uncomfortable working in it even though I've worked in C and C++ for over a decade, and it's entirely a self-inflicted wound by the Rust devs.

Again, UB is UB, and if the author of said program wrote it to rely on -fno-strict-aliasing in gccrs, that's probably bad code. It doesn't mean, however, that -fno-strict-aliasing isn't useful.

The truth of the matter is that I'm horrified by stacked borrows and what it represents, because it will make unsafe code extremely painful to write and extremely brittle. Rust needs a way to opt-out of these aggressive optimizations, like every other systems language ever has had for the majority of their lifespans. A function attribute would be acceptable, but the truth is, Rust is not open to any such enhancements for unsafe code. They seem hell-bent on enforcing "safety" on deliberately unsafe code, even if it breaks that code in subtle ways.

EDIT: I have no interest in arguing further. This is a hopeless and frankly rather disheartening topic for me. Rust has brought out more strong emotions from me than any other language I have ever used. I suppose why it matters to me is because I see such potential in Rust, and I feel it's being taken down the wrong path. But, that's just my opinion.

Rust must stabilize its ABI if it seeks to be a useful systems language. You usually don't have to worry about ABI for LLVM and GCC interaction, so why should you need to worry about rustc and gccrs interaction? C++ STL and MSVC are known exceptions. In other words, anything produced by gccrs will already be incompatible with rustc.

Yeah that was me I'm afraid. That said, I strongly disagree that -fno-strict-aliasing changes language semantics in an appreciable way, since using it to deliberately circumvent the aliasing rules still wouldn't be sanctioned by Rust. You'd just have a predictable, mostly acceptable form of "UB" rather than whatever glitter the compiler feels like farting into your face. If I was asking for a flag that broke existing code, I'd understand, but since this change is totally backwards compatible, I don't understand the objection.

All I'm gonna say is that as far as problems go, this one isn't so bad. I wonder what percentage of those kids were already nearing obesity.

I guess I can take comfort in the fact that having kids with a little extra chönk isn't that big of an issue.

Among other things, async was done quite poorly imho and I know I'm not the only one to think so, and a huge pet peeve of mine is how rustc prevents you from turning off specific optimizations when they can be harmful to your code, e.g. strict aliasing, which actually makes unsafe code more unsafe by producing subtle bugs rather than predictable, deterministic behavior.