[slgeorge]

"Modern" seems to be used a loose adjective these days for "I rewrote $thing [in Rust]". Minecraft was created in 2011, and is Wikipedia says the last version of the 'classic' edition was released in 2017. So anything after 2017 is now defunct.

I don't mind people rewriting things in <insert-name-of-tech-I-like> but "modern" as a value seems pretty loose, and it's often at least arguable whether it's objectively better!

[codetrotter]

“Modern” more usually means some new JavaScript thing. In JS land, they consider anything that hasn’t had a commit on main branch in over 3 days to be a dead old project in need of being replaced with something new and “modern” that is up to date with the latest trends and breaking changes from the previous 24 hours of their world.

Usually the hyperbolic superlative for Rust projects is “blazing fast”. Of course, any kind of benchmarks or comparisons with other implementations are completely optional. It is simply enough to “cargo init” and start hammering out code. You don’t even need to consider the characteristics of the algorithms you choose to use! If it’s Rust, it’s “blazing fast”.

[c-hendricks]

Where's that meme of the guy painting demons then laying down on the floor in fear when you need it.

[renewiltord]

Your most starred repo is inferior to a shell one-liner lol. Talk about pot calling the kettle black. Just use the system dict, shuf, grep, and head.

It’s bad form to badmouth someone’s earnest work for sure. I wouldn’t do it normally since I think it’s nice that you actually did something. But if you’re going to sit in a glass house and throw stones you should expect some back.

Fortunately, my house is an underground burrow so I can throw stones with impunity. As ugly as it is to do.

[codetrotter]

> a shell one-liner lol

Dig a little deeper in the repos and you may eventually find that this is exactly what that started as :^)

> badmouth someone’s earnest work for sure

Was speaking generally. Not meant at OP. I think it’s awesome that they are making a Minecraft server in Rust.

> Talk about pot calling the kettle black

Of course! Anything else would be bad form.

> my house is an underground burrow so I can throw stones with impunity

Sneaky, sneaky ;)

[renewiltord]

Haha fair play if you’re in the “we’re all clowns here” camp.

[Aeolun]

How do you throw stones out of an underground burrow?

[renewiltord]

With your arms, usually, but I’ve known people who use catapults.

[Apocryphon]

Throwing a rock straight up through a vertical shaft? Checks out.

[alex_medvedev]

Sorry, I may should not used the term Modern, Lets say the foundation is newer and more optimized than from the Original Minecraft server. Mojang developers have strict deadlines and do not care about performance (like basicly any big Studio today). This results in bad ugly code which only purpose it is to work nothing more. Minecraft was created 2009 btw

[ramenlover]

I'd argue they care about performance, but they also care about a whole slew of other things that also require prioritization to maintain the game and its cottage industry. Not a huge fan of the constant dogging on mojang everyone loves to engage in...

[bangaladore]

People seem to forget that if you already know where the finish line is, the journey on getting there can be made quicker and more efficient.

This, at least in my experience, applies greatly to software and hardware.

[lucb1e]

> "modern" as a value seems pretty loose, and it's often at least arguable whether it's objectively better!

Well, there is research on this!

https://security.googleblog.com/2024/09/eliminating-memory-s... writes:

> vulnerabilities decay exponentially. They have a half-life. [...] A large-scale study of vulnerability lifetimes² published in 2022 in Usenix Security confirmed this phenomenon. Researchers found that the vast majority of vulnerabilities reside in new or recently modified code

Where ² goes to https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity22/presentat...

A study limitation is that they looked only at security-relevant bugs (vulnerabilities). As someone who writes code, I would tend to think that this also goes for bugs without a direct security impact, but I don't have the data to back that notion up

[Aeolun]

Feels kinda obvious to me? As time goes on bug density can only go on direction, and making no changes to a codebase certainly doesn’t make it go up.

[lucb1e]

For bugs, perhaps, but for vulnerabilities, new attacks and techniques are being found. Or just nobody is looking at most things most of the time and it's not really correlated with age that clearly. Imo it's good to have the data of what actually happens