[fluffybucktsnek]

People who believe in total unsuitability would be acting silly indeed. But most would agree that writing code on languages that provide better and safer tooling is a positive.

Sure, the main Rust compiler currently depends on LLVM, which is currently written in C++. But the rustc team might choose to follow a similar path to Zig and replace LLVM, or LLVM might get rewritten in Rust.

Finally, while most bugs are logical, the most damaging ones, security bugs, are primarily related to undefined behavior.

[rustfreeforme]

> People who believe in total unsuitability would be acting silly indeed.

Not 'would be.' They are.

> But most would agree that writing code on languages that provide better and safer tooling is a positive.

Most of whom?

When the 'language that provides better and safer tooling' is written in and depends upon a giant ecosystem of components written in the language which you despise, your belief system is garbage.

> Sure, the main Rust compiler currently depends on LLVM, which is currently written in C++. But the rustc team might choose to follow a similar path to Zig and replace LLVM, or LLVM might get rewritten in Rust.

Please do so at the earliest opportunity, so that your language can actually become an alternative to C++. Then you'll actually have a leg to stand on.

> Finally, while most bugs are logical, the most damaging ones, security bugs, are primarily related to undefined behavior.

False. Nonsense. Not true.

[fluffybucktsnek]

The problem is that you think Rust programmers despise C or C++. We don't. We just think there are better alternatives for modern development. In fact, a lot of Rust programmers were experienced C or C++ programmers.

And then you say:

> [...] your belief system.

What do you mean by that? What beliefs? This just sounds like projection.

> Please do so at the earliest opportunity, so that your language can actually become an alternative to C++.

It already is an alternative to C++. The fact that LLVM is written in C++ doesn't change the fact that you can write software that otherwise would be written in C++ or C, in pure Rust without writing a single C or C++ source nor header file.

> False. Nonsense. Not true.

https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/memory-safet...

[rustfreeforme]

> The problem is that you think Rust programmers despise C or C++.

No, I just checked, and there is no problem detected here.

It does not matter if you despise C/C++ or not. The fact of the matter is--and it's very simple:

YOUR ENTIRE WORLD IS BUILT ON C/C++.

EVERYTHING YOU BUILD ON RUST IS THEREFORE BUILT ON THAT FOUNDATION.

YOU ARE 100% DEPENDENT ON C++ AND--SHOCK, HORROR--C. FACT.

Saying Rust is the replacement for C/C++ is like saying Python is the replacement for C/C++. No, not quite.

Maybe after decades of ' ' progress ' ', Rust will become an actual alternative to C/C++. All you have to do is laboriously rewrite everything in it, or just do a half assed source translation via AI or some other junk tool. No big deal, I'm sure you'll make rapid progress in getting right back to where you already were, just like the KDE 4 folks did.

> It already is an alternative to C++. The fact that LLVM is written in C++ doesn't change the fact that you can write software that otherwise would be written in C++ or C, in pure Rust without writing a single C or C++ source nor header file.

facepalm

> * links to some Chromium bullshit *

I don't go to Google for advice on how to design software, thanks. Especially not to the Chromium source, which is a gigantic flaming heap of trash, exactly the sort of thing those idiots produce, foist upon the world, and then everyone believes is the ultimate standard when it is in fact a flaming pile of shit.

As I already said, the problem with Chromium isn't C++, it's Google.

[fluffybucktsnek]

> YOUR ENTIRE WORLD IS BUILT ON C/C++.

What a reductive view of reality. That's like saying our entire world is built on assembly. That's just missing the point.

> Saying Rust is the replacement to C/C++ is like saying Python is the replacement to C/C++. No, not quite.

With analogy such as these, I see where the "No, not quite" comes from. For starters, we can write actually low-level Rust code enough to write kernels without needing to interface with C code, only raw assembly. I don't think Python can do that.

> I don't go to Google for advice on how to design software, thanks.

Good thing they weren't giving advice, but reporting that most security vulnerabilities came from just bad memory access, which contradicts your counter assertion. None of that is subjective. Whether you think they are the ideal programmers or not is irrelevant.