The same could be said for every Rust fanboy that feels the need to mention Rust whenever an article about C or anything implemented in C is brought up.
Or every C fanboy brings up C whenever Rust is mentioned.
As somebody who uses both, I don’t understand the whole territorial conflicts in this space. Any C programmer can learn a ton by the paradigm Rust uses. Even if Rust would fade into oblivion tomorrow, the lessons I learned by using it will remain valueable enough for me not to regret having learned it.
C is always going to be needed, given the size of the codebase and the amount of embedded stuff written in it. It comes – however – with a waggon full of dangerous traps and gotchas and in practise very few people are good enough to always avoid them or mitigate the risks created by them. I don’t see any reason why C shouldn’t get better in these areas for the benefit of everyone involved.
No disrespect to you but passion in people can come from deep knowledge of a subject but IME much more commonly comes from lack of experience with alternatives.
I've noticed the younger people are the more likely they are to be passionate, which I put down mainly to not knowing any better. Once one has more of the experience that places you higher up where you can see further, suddenly one's own plot of land doesn't seem so special.
Does that justify the snide remarks? We should show more tolerance, there might not be a tool in existence that does not have its disadvantages along with its advantages. Healthy discussion around facts is beneficial, dismissing people for being passionate is not.
That did sound snide but it wasn't meant that way. I'm not sure how I should have done it better.
> dismissing people for being passionate is not
Seems I didn't say that well either. Passion that comes from knowledge and experience is good. If it comes from inexperience then maybe not so good because it isn't "Healthy discussion around facts" but around existing biases.
As somebody who uses both, I don’t understand the whole territorial conflicts in this space. Any C programmer can learn a ton by the paradigm Rust uses. Even if Rust would fade into oblivion tomorrow, the lessons I learned by using it will remain valueable enough for me not to regret having learned it.
C is always going to be needed, given the size of the codebase and the amount of embedded stuff written in it. It comes – however – with a waggon full of dangerous traps and gotchas and in practise very few people are good enough to always avoid them or mitigate the risks created by them. I don’t see any reason why C shouldn’t get better in these areas for the benefit of everyone involved.