The metrics here, which seems to be alien to many real people or AI bots here, is that the syntax complexity is directly correlated to the difficulty to write an alternative _real life_ compiler of such language (not to mention the other issues...)
The thing with c++,rust and similar syntaxes, is they are at an absurd and grotesque scale in complexity compared to, for instance, C99 syntax with some bits from c11+ for modern architecture programming (dodging all the ISO tantrums like _generic, typeof, asset on steroid, etc).
Yes those words are fair, and not aknowledging them, or trying to dodge this reality, is bluntly hypocrit or you are the victim here, brain-washed, and I advise you to take a deep breath and reflect on that matter in order to get a better perspective.
Do I say C99 + bits of c11+ is "BETTER", certainly not, I am just saying this is a less worse compromise. And its syntax is already waaaaay too complex and should be simplified already... then c++, rust and similar, owww!
There is no argument or questioning here, only aknowledgement of a disturbing
absolute truth and fair critism.
And if fair critism means bad karma here, the problem is not with me, but with the karma.
> The thing with c++,rust and similar syntaxes, is they are at an absurd and grotesque scale in complexity compared to, for instance, C99 syntax with some bits from c11+ for modern architecture programming (dodging all the ISO tantrums like _generic, typeof, asset on steroid, etc).
The syntax is a tradeoff, almost always. For example, without the lifetime type in Rust, compiler cannot identify even in theory, what is the intended lifetime of that specific type and it cannot guarantee that use-after-free will not happen.
> which seems to be alien to many real people or AI bots here
Take personal attacks somewhere else. They're against the site rules here.
>Yes those words are fair, and not aknowledging them, or trying to dodge this reality, is bluntly hypocrit or you are the victim here, brain-washed, and I advise you to take a deep breath and reflect on that matter in order to get a better perspective.
I have to see it your way, or I'm either brain-washed or a hypocrite?
> There is no argument or questioning here, only aknowledgement of a disturbing absolute truth and fair critism.
There's no questioning, only absolute truth?
The world is more complicated than you think, with more trade-offs and less black and white. You need to take a deep breath and get a better perspective.
> they are at an absurd and grotesque scale in complexity
I'm sure you can understand, though, that other people will prioritize different factors in the pros/cons of each language.
For instance, as a dev that's well versed in type systems but with little experience of handling memory, Rust is basically golden compared to C or C++, because I can write code without fear, knowing that all of the discipline C/C++ devs is baked in a type system I'm used to.
> I am just saying this is a less worse compromise
In that sense, when comparing languages with different tradeoffs, people in different contexts will make different choices.
A compromise is necessarily context-bound, and saying which compromise you promote is just another way to talk about your own context.
Exactly, and my point is critism of those tradeoffs by shining light on some of their "cosmical scale"(the word is fair) costs... somehow completely ignored in this articles of this type... how convenient...
People are not equal in experience and knowledge, and it is very important to ring a different bell here to give them a significant other perspective which will impact their own choices... those very choices which other people will have to suffer if it happens they code critical open source software...
The metrics here, which seems to be alien to many real people or AI bots here, is that the syntax complexity is directly correlated to the difficulty to write an alternative _real life_ compiler of such language (not to mention the other issues...)
The thing with c++,rust and similar syntaxes, is they are at an absurd and grotesque scale in complexity compared to, for instance, C99 syntax with some bits from c11+ for modern architecture programming (dodging all the ISO tantrums like _generic, typeof, asset on steroid, etc).
Yes those words are fair, and not aknowledging them, or trying to dodge this reality, is bluntly hypocrit or you are the victim here, brain-washed, and I advise you to take a deep breath and reflect on that matter in order to get a better perspective.
Do I say C99 + bits of c11+ is "BETTER", certainly not, I am just saying this is a less worse compromise. And its syntax is already waaaaay too complex and should be simplified already... then c++, rust and similar, owww!
There is no argument or questioning here, only aknowledgement of a disturbing absolute truth and fair critism.
And if fair critism means bad karma here, the problem is not with me, but with the karma.