We can’t blame them when they are looking to squeeze more profits and at the same time blame the ones who try to do things different.
149 karma · joined January 8, 2025
We can’t blame them when they are looking to squeeze more profits and at the same time blame the ones who try to do things different.
No thanks!
Hard truth but true nonetheless. How come we should have it both ways? We removed certain jobs, it’s our turn to have many types of jobs disrupted and have to transition.
For ICE it’s kinda a big stretch can we agree? And in this case the person does have control. This person does have agency over the issue and should regularize their situation as soon as possible.
Now for Rust I don’t think it is going to change a lot. Because it is based on ML, it has the best foundations and all features are known. The question is more how much Haskell vs script/imperative do you want your language to be, and what’s the purpose of the language rather than we had the wrong paradigm and found a new better one. For Rust 99% of its features are known and most are already implemented.
Maybe things around the borrow checker, and await, but beyond that nothing as much as what C++ saw in its history. Even more when for instance you see the article from the guy doing Gleam where traits (impl) are not necessary, all you need is data and function to have the same functionality. Or how ML have been the main factor to most new languages or new features to existing languages.
The future is ML, with languages dedicated to specific use cases and niches. And also ML languages easily readable by AI.
Right now they can be autonomous to finding bugs and inconsistencies. But not architecture or even just creating a long enough PR without any guidance and feedback.
For Actix web he was using “unsafe” to increase performance. That doesn’t mean the code written was unsafe… The Rust community was turning to a cult on this topic when perfectly experienced C++ can write code would need the unsafe in Rust when they perfectly know the code isn’t. It’s good for the community to push people to avoid to use unsafe but not to that extend of drama and bullying…
Look also at the hate spread against UE5… It’s everywhere and half of the arguments are falsehoods made by influencers with no real experience in the industry…
No it’s one way but there are many other ways. Look at the US, stating that they grew because China and the EU exported their industries there is simply false. But through technology advancements, market size, market leadership, etc… is closer to how they achieved their economic growth.