The Rust SJWs have launched their first public attack

techcrunch.com/2017/07/16/death-to-c/

"Death to C, ++"

>Software engineer and TechCrunch columnist Jon Evans writes that the C programming language "gives its users far too much artillery with which to shoot their feet off" and is "no longer suitable for the world which C has built." An anonymous reader shared Evans' post:

>Copious experience has taught us all, the hard way, that it is very difficult, verging on "basically impossible," to write extensive amounts of C code that is not riddled with security holes. As I wrote two years ago, in my first Death To C piece... "Buffer overflows and dangling pointers lead to catastrophic security holes, again and again and again, just like yesteryear, just like all the years of yore. We cannot afford its gargantuan, gaping security blind spots any more. It's long past time to retire and replace it with another language.

>"The trouble is, most modern languages don't even try to replace C... They're not good at the thing C does best: getting down to the bare metal and working at mach speed." Today I am seriously suggesting that when engineers refactor existing C code, especially parsers and other input handlers, they replace it -- slowly, bit by bit -- with Rust... we are only going to dig ourselves out of our giant collective security hole iteratively, one shovelful of better code and better tooling at a time."

>He also suggests other fixes -- like using a language-theoretic approach which conceptualizes valid inputs as their own formal language, and formal verification of the correctness of algorithms. But he still insists that "C has become a monster" -- and that we must start replacing it with Rust.

How do we oust these rats from the industry? They're going to ruin everything good that better men built before them. It's the same shit with front end frameworks getting worse and worse with the excuse that it's somehow easier to use, with a new one coming out every 6 months. It's just a big pile of shit and they won't stop.

Rust doesn't make programming safer it makes it worse by fooling the programmer into thinking their code is "safe" by default. As a result the quality of the software ecosystem takes a nosedive and everything turns to shit.
Thanks mozilla, you truly make programming worse that it was 10 years ago.

You pretty much have to call out their real agenda to oust them, put up public warnings about this organisation that's funded by Mozilla who are funded by the macarthur foundation, who in turn funds most SJW shit.

Can someone explain in non-programmer retard terms why Rust is supposedly better than C according to its developers?

BECAUSE SAFETY
OH MY GOD SAFETY
HAVE WE MENTIONED SAFETY???

They have an affine type systems that they think solves every problem they can encounter. Except it doesn't so they label problems that can't be solved within their socially just framework "unsafe".

It's basically a safe space for coding.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

it's not, the only reason they shill it is to create vendor lock in for their garbage language that no one cares about.
it's literally the way microsoft made themselves persist to this day.
>developers developers developers developers
is now
>type-saftey type-saftey type-saftey type-saftey

Except it does make programming safer, tell me more about how it doesnt.

How is it a garbage language exactly?

There's no actual SJW agenda, and even if it were the case Rust is an objectively superior language to C and C++.

This seems all true.

Now, I am of the opinion that rust is a shit replacement, which is why I still use C for these tasks. But the point that C is a time bomb we need to get rid of as soon as possible is well taken.

Actually, C++ needs to die a quick death

>There's no actual SJW agenda
The throbbing CoC on your front page disagrees.

Mozilla is a SJW organisation.

C++1x is superior to your faggot language, and most professionals agree. C++20 will destroy any hope of you ever catching up once concepts kick in.

>vendor lock in
Do you actually know what that means, you dumb fucking retard?

C++17 is still C++, and it's the worst language I've ever worked with.
C++ is just plain garbage. It even makes Java look good.

show me how your code is safer in rust compared to in C. it's the claim the rust people have yet to actually substantiate in any reasonable way.
Absolutely, I work at Microsoft after all.

>C++1x is superior to your faggot language, and most professionals agree. C++20 will destroy any hope of you ever catching up once concepts kick in.
I see this supposed C++ version that "fixes the world" but I don't see it deliver anything substantial

So microsoft is shilling visual C++
No wonder there

>The throbbing CoC on your front page disagrees.

The fact the official community venues have a CoC in place does absolutely nothing.

You can create your own Rust community where everyone insults eachothers and circle jerk, nothing is stopping you from that.

>Mozilla is a SJW organisation.

That is true, but the majority of people working on Rust are not employed by Mozilla, so it has no effect.

>C++1x is superior to your faggot language, and most professionals agree.

You mean people with a superiority complex who have invested decades of their lives on an abomination think their language of choice is superior? Really surprising.

>C++20 will destroy any hope of you ever catching up once concepts kick in.

That was said about C++11, and C++14, and C++17, call me back when modules, concepts and the various other billion TS we've been waiting for are there. Some blog posts about it was posted a couple days ago, a lot of shit won't make it into C++20.

Besides, C++ is broken at the core, they can't provide any kind of actual enforced and formally proven safety.

15 rupees have been deposited to your microsoft shilling campaign, rakesh

>show me how your code is safer in rust compared to in C. it's the claim the rust people have yet to actually substantiate in any reasonable way.

There are many projects written in Rust that are superior to their C counterpart, just look those up.

And the safety claim comes from formal verification of the core features of the language and the concept of extensible safety, just look up the RustBelt paper that was released last week, assuming you can actually read a research paper on the matter.

"C++XY will change everything !!11!!1!!" is like saying "20XY is the year of linux desktop "

But C++11 literally changed everything and killed any hopes D had for example

Ooooh, now I get it. You are shilling C++ because you want people to use your spyware compiler.

Pathetic

Name 3.

But D had no point in the first place, and pretty much killed itself with the Phobos and whatever the name of the other standard libary was.

C++11 didn't kill D, D killed itself.

That aside, Rust is a completely different beast from D and has a completely different set of objectives.

Still no modules

Telling other people to do the hard work for you isn't how you convince them you're right. You ever wonder why no one takes rust seriously? Look at that post, that's why. Rust will never amount to anything because it's purely an ideological language with no technical gains. No one will spend 30 million dollars to port a large code base to rust because "safety". Yell louder you'll only alienate people who used to be on your side.

C++ has 2 standard libraries too. D got killed because no one gave a shit about improving its GC

there's nothing related to social justice in this article. are you okay Sup Forumsfriend?

>show me how your code is safer in rust compared to in C
As long as you don't explicitly use the unsafe constructions in rust, a bug can never lead to arbitrary code execution, because the language runtime is invulnerable to programmer error. This is true for most languages more recent than C++, and it's NOT true for C and C++. There are other security problems that can happen because of a bug, of course; but this particularly dangerous class of security problems is absent entirely.

The only reason C++ is still more alive than D is because Microsoft actively shills C++

He's just shilling Microsoft visual c pee pee

>There are many projects written in Rust that are superior to their C counterpart
Name just one, SJW.

Not him, look up ripgrep as a small example

le es jay double-(you) xD

The funny thing is we KNOW why you're pushing Rust. It's not about the ugly language but the social agenda behind it. You don't really hide it well.

I'll stick to C++ and Go, those work fine for my application. Enjoy your dead on arrival language.

That's a good thing. Not having modules is one of the strengths of C and C++ over most more recent languages. Modules a shit.

Name 3 what? Libraries? Self contained programs? Kernels? Systems used in the industry?

All of those exist in Rust, I have a job writing Rust and I'm not being paid by Mozilla.

>You ever wonder why no one takes rust seriously? Look at that post, that's why.

If people decide the technologies to use based on what some people in the community say, then they're just retarded.

>Rust will never amount to anything because it's purely an ideological language with no technical gains.

This is just false.

>No one will spend 30 million dollars to port a large code base to rust because "safety".

I wouldn't either, the people calling for rewriting everything in Rust are just retarded, doesn't mean you have to write new things in C or C++ because that's all you know.

>Yell louder you'll only alienate people who used to be on your side.

I don't give a shit about either, I pick technology objectively.

>SJW
If only you knew who I am.

>As long as you don't explicitly use the unsafe constructions in rust, a bug can never lead to arbitrary code execution, because the language runtime is invulnerable to programmer error.

This is a dangerously arrogant assumption that WILL lead to RCEs. Anyone that seriously believes this needs to be shot in the head for being braindead retarded.

>C++

You know what C has that Rust doesn't? First class support in every BSD.

>Modules a shit
And grapes are sour

I don't think he is. I think he's just trying to fight political battles under the disguise of discussing programming which is pretty retarded but I don't really care as long as it stays on Sup Forums

>C++
>Go
I think you are dumber than webdevs

>xD
Nice work pledditor! You are fitting in with your sarcasm, I'll totally cut off my balls now and use Rust.

Modules are a cancer. I'm glad C++ doesn't have them and oppose any motion to integrate this shitty thing into it. I prefer to have freedom to tool my builds the way I want to.

No, it's because C++ started catching up and now there is no reason to give up years of backwards compatibility.

No him, but OP clearly admitted that he's working for Microsoft. Microsoft wants people to stay off safety and use their spyware vendor lock in C++ compiler

>If only you knew who I am.
Edgy

>CyutxHoVIAELF5y.jpg
Nice plebbit image, plebbittor

I'm not the guy you're replying to, but sometimes it's really hard to resist throwing that in when you're actually an authority on the topic but have to keep your identity down low for various reasons.

>I prefer to have freedom to tool my builds the way I want to.
Modules have nothing to do with that you fucking autist

Don't be dense. You'll notice that RCEs are in fact not possible in most other post-C++ languages either -- excepting components written in unsafe languages, of course.

Are you implying headers and stringly macros/inclusion is a good thing? You must have hit your head as a young child.

>This is a dangerously arrogant assumption that WILL lead to RCEs.

I don't think you know how that works user.

>Anyone that seriously believes this needs to be shot in the head for being braindead retarded.

It's literally immpossible to get any kind of memory unsafety if no `unsafe` is used. Literally. Impossible. The program won't even compile.

That is proven, the area of research for formally proving Rust is safe is about the fact that you can wrap unsafety in a safe abstraction. And many of the standard library types that do that have been formally proven to be correct.

Read up on RustBelt and the proof framework they worked on. There's a bunch of Coq code you can run yourself to see it formally proven before your eyes.

I meant for the SJW claim not in the "I'm a super duper dude and so important lmao" way, I'm the opposite of that, I actually had to fight them.

Nice argument, microsoft shill

>C programmers

>do you know who I am?
an arrogant narcissist asswipe?

>C++ started catching up
It'll always be 15 years behind better languages, according to Scott Mayers

kek

>Resorts to name calling
Who knew

Nope, it's easy to yell SJW when you don't know who someone is, what I meant is that if you knew who I was, then you wouldn't yell SJW. Learn to read.

>No him, but OP clearly admitted that he's working for Microsoft
This is another thing both Rust advocates (SJWs) and systemd enforcers (SJWs) do. Accuse their detractors of working for Microsoft or the NSA.

But this socially just miscreant goes a step further stating that OP ADMITTED to working for Microsoft, just because he linked and pasted an article.

C++ killed programming back in the 80's

But Rust sucks.

>Accuse their detractors of working for Microsoft or the NSA.
see Fucking idiot

You DO realize, Microsoft pretty much owns C++ now right? Even the de-facto C++ book requires that you use Windows

As a transgender person of color that wants to be a programmer I can see now why rust won't be a language I'll ever consider using. Too much ego, politics and drama, not enough programming.

He's not working for Microsoft? What do you mean?

That's not OP you fucking nigger

Maybe for people who care more about masturbating over languages than actually getting shit done.
That's why C++ is so hated here, because it's the language of choice for people who just want results (and actually achieve them too!)

>n-not him
Clockwork

>Even the de-facto C++ book requires that you use Windows
Wow this is some raw sewage right here. I've never heard bigger bullshit than this.

Which page requires you to use Windows?

>actually getting shit done.
In that case you would be using python or Java. Stop deluding yourself, pajeet

If Rust is so good, why doesn't anyone run its OS, Redox? Timestamped screenshot now

OH BOY HERE WE GO AGAIN

>every language is going down
this doesn't make any fucking sense.

Language monopoly does not exist anymore, newer languages are catching up and taking up the share

Because Redox is a meme, if C++ is so good why aren't you using Windows?

>visual studio
It's been that way all along. Bjarno was paid by microsoft to shill their botnet compiler

>my favorite unremarkable text book is the standard guise

>acts like a shithead
>gets called out for being a shithead to others
>THESE PEOPLE THEY'RE OPPRESSING ME
rust ecosystem in a nuttshell

>Programming Principles and Practice using C++
>Not the actual C++ book by its author
Go fuck yourself SJW liar.

YOU are the one who showed me that book you fucking dipshit

I'd rather sit at the gas valve in Auschwitz than code a single line of C++. This thing transcendents any crime against humanity ever committed.

>actual C++ book by its author
That's the actual C++ book, by it's author

>Appendix C on how to use it with windows
>At the back of the book
>Required to use it
Wow Rust coders can't even read, no wonder they need safety so much.

>>acts like a shithead
So basically OP?

No that's not the actual C++ book, it's a book that is meant to compliment it and dumb it down for people.

The official C++ book is "The C++ programming language", 4th edition.

>Because Redox is a meme
But you people claimed it was going to solve Linux's problems, and become better than it, from the get go. There is no backpeddling from that statement.

>you'll notice that RCEs are in fact not possible in php
>you'll notice that RCEs are in fact not possible in java
>you'll notice that RCEs are in fact not possible in ruby
>you'll notice that RCEs are in fact not possible in python
>you'll notice that RCEs are in fact not possible in javascript
rust people in charge of saftey everyone.

>>At the back of the book
>>Required to use it
>AT THE END OF THE BOOK

YOU FUCKING MICROSHILL STOP LYING RIGHT FUCKING NOW

It's interesting you're so triggered by OP when all he did was quote your own shitty article.

Cry harder Rustfag

I'd rather get fucked in the ass before I write a single line of Rust.

>it's a book that is meant to compliment it and dumb it down for people.
So basically C++ users? Got it

>I'd rather get fucked in the ass
>Anime
I am not surprised actually

>Sup Forums is a single person
>Rust programmers are a single person

user, pls.

kek, Microsoft has been brainwashing C++ pajeets from an early stage

This shit is insane.

They want a language as fast as C, but they want it to simultaneously be completely bulletproof, as well. They don't seem to understand that the lack of safeties is what makes C good at what it does.

>what's worse than social justice warriors?

I'm not sure, but the alt-right Sup Forums gamergate fuckers are just as annoying

I just showed this thread as a reason not to adopt rust for one of our long term IoT related projects.
It worked.

Redox is flat out THE BEST operating system ever written and it's primarily because it was written from scratch in Rust.

It literally never crashes.

Redox is going to kill Linux soon

Redox vs TempleOS
go!

Well of course, what C is good for is producing insecure software, so no wonder Rust sucks at that.