Ygg2

Sure there are. US economy is K shaped. You either become rich or end up poor.

It's economy geared for the rich. Where poor only exist to give rich a confidence boost.

When economy goes K shaped (only ultra rich or ultra poor with no in-between) GDP is good preidictor of how the ultra rich are fairing.

For everyone else a roulette wheel is a better measurement.

Can you run Graphene on non Pixel phones?

Yeah, and writing thread safe Java is fraught with hidden shotgun and footguns because whether something is thread safe depends on bunch of notes about this class/method not being thread safe.

And relying on people to check them. Versus a compiler.

If two trillionaires bounce a 4 trillion dollar IOU, the GDP could be the greatest in the universe, even though nothing would substantially change.

No one will support Windows if no one uses it either.

> Your software can be made by you, for you.

Yeah, but it's probably derived from OSS software anyway either via license or LLM. That said, you can customize your Linux/BSD/Haiku/TempleOS as much as you want.

But consider the following: even in the better case of an OS making 1% of OS userbase (vs. 0.0000001%) no one wants to support it.

Want to play Diablo? Better to sit down and waste your time.

Ok, but still they share some programming language paradigm, but not all. They both are imperative, concurrent and functional, but Rust is generic, Go is not. Rust is structured, Go is OO.

> It's YOUR computer, you can put YOUR software on it. In fact even pocket calculator do that.

I'm pretty sure this exists. It's called OSS or, more ubiquitously, Linux.

The problem is, of course, no one wants to publish software for your PC/handmade OS. Which makes it a huge problem. You can't write every piece of your OS, without wasting huge amount of time. Nor do people generally want this.

Why Rust and not say Ada?

They might share some paradigms (focus on low level optimization) but they aren't the same.

Go focuses on heavy runtime, looser type systems, and all the benefits and drawback that brings.

Solved assuming you can afford a huge embedded-unfriendly runtime.

See what they wrote:

> Async ruined Rust for me, even though I write exactly the kind of highly concurrent servers to which it's supposed to be perfectly suited. It degrades API

It refers to async in Rust, and everyone else is responding as if it is talking about async in Rust. That's a mischaracterization. You don't have to use the Tokio executor.

It's a bit like saying, "Graphics in Rust are ruined. I need to use Vulkan to make my game."

No, you don't. If your use case is unique enough, use something else. There are bindings for OpenGL, DirectX, etc.

That's interesting because I remember people talking about Rust green threads as M:N mapping, which seems to be the only difference.

> It degrades API surfaces to the worst case :Send+Sync+'static because APIs have to be prepared to run on multithreaded executors

This isn't true at all. The Send+Sync+'static is basically the limitation of tokio::spawn

https://emschwartz.me/async-rust-can-be-a-pleasure-to-work-w...

Change the executor, and the bound changes.

> Rust has green threads in the early days and abandoned them in favour of async / await. Granted the original green thread implementation needed a bit of refinement - making every low level choose between event driven and blocking on every invocation was a mistake.

That's a mischaraterization. They were abandoned because having green threads introduces non-trivial runtime. It means Rust can't run on egzotic architectures.

> It sounds like Zig with its pluggable I/O interface finally got it right

That remains to be seen. It looks good, with emphasis on looks. Who knows what interesting design constraints and limitation that entails.

Looking at comptime, which is touted as Zig's mega feature, it does come at expense of a more strictly typed system.

> Green threads are a very controversial design choice that even JVM backed out of.

Did they? Project Loom has stabilized around Java 21, no?

Why? Any links to this decision?

I see Microsoft mandated AI is doing wonders. For self hosters and Linux enthusiasts.

> That being said Rust is definitely a much higher level language than either C or Zig. The availability of `Arc` and `Box`, the existence and reliance on `drop`

I mean, C++ have RAII and stuff like unique pointer, does that make it higher level than Zig?

And what if you don't use Arc or Box? Is your program now lower level than baseline Rust?

As I said, depends a lot about what you mean by low level.

Except if you need to expose or consume a C API, or you need to use some obscure performance improvement.

This depends on what you mean by low level. Commonly it means, how much you need to take care about minute, low-level issues. In that way C, Rust, and Zig are about the same.

Dependencies have nothing to do with low-level vs. high-level but just package management, how well the language composes, and how rich the standard library is. Are assumptions in package A able to affect package B. In C that's almost impossible to avoid, because different people have different ideas about how long their objects live.

Having a rich standard library isn't just a pure positive. More code means more maintenance.

Sure, but giving them a generous IP license isn't considered a forfeit of your IP.

Blizzard actually went a step beyond and asked for your forfeit of any IP that you make with their tools. Not that any of those tools was used for Turtle WoW.

Sure, at the start, yes.

But then came Java and Wap. You could, in theory, download a jar from a site and try to run it. God knows if it would run. But it wasn't a locked-down app store that bypassing would land you in hot water.

I don't disagree. A big reason 2026 is the Year of the Desktop Linux is that MSFT lost any interest in the Desktop PC platform. Outside selling more of my data and filling it with AI Slop.

But if, say, AAPL had won the PC wars, we'd be staring at a much more locked-down, much more expensive OS experience.

How dare you insult the forty gazillion company! Stand back ma'am I'll protect you from this handsome hacker ruffian!

Jokes aside, I have started to see Microslop as the lesser of two evils (two evils being MSFT and AAPL, Google being its own parallel universe abomination). Their commitment to backward compatibility really paved the way to cheap PCs for the masses. That said, every day Macroslop is working diligently to prove me wrong.

They are the Kings of Apple Ecosystem Deprecations - not just hardware. I'm comparing them to the x86 and the Windows ecosystem.

Google is the God-King of Killing software.

> It’s WoW but it’s not WoW?

It's substantially different from a pirate server.

> Sounds like they’re talented game designers and they sunk their whole project because they stole art and assets.

At the end of the day, they are in essence WoW modders. Plus, a new game with own assets and engine is a different beast compared to modding an existing engine.

Because Apple is the King of Deprecations. And they get away with it.

> A fan project still encroaches and Blizzard as many have pointed out is well within their rights to do this

Sure, but I'm sure that IP laws don't demand you send CnD any fan project[1]. In the past, they were way more lenient. I guess they got scarred by their DotA experience. And honestly DotA mismanagement was their own fault.

Stuff like that has a hugely detrimental effect; see Games Workshop and Warhammer 40k fan projects.

[1] As far as I know the law doesn't prohibit to giving the server a license to run as a non-profit or giving them a cheap, short term license.