Joe Biden wants memory errors GONE.

Also funny that Theo has a linux audio bug mid stream

What's wrong with C? (don't feel like watching a youtube video about something I don't understand)

>>1472
easy to write code that can be exploited

just get gud at writing code

>>1474
this is government code though

Thumbnail swap!

>>1475
government is famously known for having bad and old code

>>1478
eakgth le agunm om to you too

>>1477
yea, government not going to have good code because contractors and the government can't beat private in salaries, but instead excels on stability(bad trait for a skilled worker/engineer)

>>1469
sounds like a lot of nothing, it looks like a darpa research proposal
I'd say at best it churns out some executable that has a kuso maintenance team and only works on a fifth of C/C++ code bases.

>>1482
The bad code is usually from citizen "developers" or old code, the old code is just the government moving slow.
Outside of silicon valley and the big tech companies, government contractors are paid about the same. Like you pointed out, what government workers don't have in salary they have in stability and benefits, health care and a pension being a big one. But unless you have a family or military years to put towards your pension it's usually not worth it.

>>1482
this has been a story arc for about a year so I think the government is pretty committed to using modern languages to reduce vulnerabilities in software.

>>1484
yeah those bluds got the rizz

>>1472
Nothing. Rust is pushed by big /tech/ companies much like Java and many things before it. The reason they don't like C is because it empowers the end user and gives them full access to the x86-64 arch (and any other arch) and RAM. This is considered "exploitable" because they don't want to teach computer science anymore. They want to churn out code monkeys that can only write in "higher level" languages where access can be gatekept and the compiler isn't able to be audited. Rust compiler pulls packages from all over the internet when you make Hello World program. C compilers just compile the local code on your machine.

Each new generation of programmers has been getting further and further away from bare metal for generations. To the point where we now have people that know nothing about how the actual computer works and can only "program" in stuff like javascript and other entry level scripting languages.

Also if you add more bloat you can sell more hardware every year.

The real/main reason they hate C is because it's easy to port to anything in a day. Where things like Rust have lock-in to more controller archs and platforms. I could go on about it all day. But I'll spare you the rest of the rant (it isn't a problem exclusive to Rust. Rust is just the main offender).

"Secure" and "Memory safe" languages do not exist. It's impossible to "secure" a modern x86-64, ARM or any other consumer device. They are insecure by their very nature.

Rust is pushed because you don't need that sort of stuff when your software is running things which will kill people if they missbehave

>>1565
This is just wrong. You can absolutely get bare-metal performance with Rust.
It is absolutely possible to make languages more conducive to correct code. You won't get rid of every bug, but you can do away with many of them. This isn't about allowing idiots to code or poor education - everyone, even the most experienced programmer, writes bugs.
And most of all, Rust is not easier for code monkeys. It's significantly more difficult (though typically not slower) and more complicated to code in than C. Learning Rust takes serious time and effort.
Have you ever written more than 100 lines of Rust? If you had, I think you wouldn't hate it so much.

>>1589
>This is just wrong. You can absolutely get bare-metal performance with Rust.
Ask me how I know you aren't compiling Rust applications on your local CPU.

Try actually working with stuff instead of spewing the same propaganda about it I could read on any major big /tech/ shilling website. Rust solves no problems that can't be solved better through education. C isn't perfect. But it's certainly better than anything else. Hence why it's so portable and IS ported to new archs before anything else. Rust and all these precious "memory safe" languages can't even run without C. It's the idea of C for me and not for thee they're pushing.

>Have you ever written more than 100 lines of Rust? If you had, I think you wouldn't hate it so much.
I don't need to write 1 line of Rust to know it's bad. When a simple Hello World application takes HOURS on MODERN HARDWARE to compile when the C version takes less than a second and can be ported to run anywhere including 30+ year old 8-bit machine while being 100 times faster at run time I have my answer. I'm not using a compiler that pulls down random not audited packages from all over the internet at compile time. Simple as.

It's the same reason why I write my own HTML, CSS, Javascript and server side stuff manually instead of using whatever abomination bloated "web framework" that pulls down unaudited scripts from all over the internet at compile/run time. I am a programmer. I'm not a script kiddie. C and HTML isn't even hard!

You want safer code? Hire real programmers instead of code monkeys that don't know what they're doing. You don't solve a problem of kuso built houses by trying to give untrained monkeys a different hammer. You hire skilled labor and give them the basic hammers that we've been using for years. They'll drive nails straight and construct a roof that doesn't cave in the first time it rains. The monkeys with your super duper safe hammer will randomly drive nails into places and be too stupid to understand how to properly support a roof/walls.

DARPA is an evil organization and one of the main reasons why the entire tech sector has been shit for the last 2-3 decades. They're also the main organization behind all these totally not run by the Government tech companies (e.g. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, RedHat, Cisco and on and on it goes). Hell they don't even bother to hide it with Google anymore. Why do you think the parent company is called Alphabet?

All one has to do is go look to see who sits on the board of the Rust foundation to know it's bad news.

>>1592

>Ask me how I know you aren't compiling Rust applications on your local CPU.
>When a simple Hello World application takes HOURS on MODERN HARDWARE to compile
I am. It takes seconds. I don't know where you got that idea.

>It's the same reason why I write my own HTML, CSS, Javascript and server side stuff manually instead of using whatever abomination bloated "web framework"
Enjoy working at 1/4 the speed of everyone else. Programmer time matters more than CPU time for 90% of applications, doubly so for webshit.

Besides, this is all rather pointless, Rust is much more comparable to a safer C++ than C. C is simple, I will give you that.

>>1593
Let me revise what I said: knowing HTML, CSS, and JS is all necessary for web stuff whether you use a framework or not. On the server-side, knowledge of sockets, TCP, and HTTP will only help you even when you use an existing web server. It's good to know your tools, but if you can use something higher-level that will get you there faster, you should. There is no virtue in handcrafting something you can get off-the-shelf. Your time is valuable.

>>1593
So your argument is it's a slower version of an already horrible programming language? The fact that Rust shit takes forever to compile and requires 100x the RAM isn't exactly obscure information. There is a reason why distros like Gentoo are forced to push Rust-bin by default.
>the rest
Spending weeks learning flavor of the month webshit framework that's just going to be run much slower anyway is a waste of time and resources.

>>1594
>Let me revise what I said: knowing HTML, CSS, and JS is all necessary for web stuff whether you use a framework or not.

The how come the average "learn to code" monkey can't use them without some stupid framework? How "high level" are we going to go? How many more layers are we going to add to the stack? We add more with each passing year to the detriment of everyone.

Rust is a language claiming to be ultra secure system code. For two platforms with known backdoors. You're spending 100x times the resources to "secure" something that is known not to be secure anyway. An entire OS outside of your control runs in Ring -1 on your CPU. So what is the purpose? To prevent someone snooping upon RAM they shouldn't? When an attacker can snoop upon it anyway even without that state level access?

Again; all one has to do is look at the Rust foundation board and the people pushing it as the greatest thing since sliced bread to see it's a bad idea. These people are no exactly trustworthy nor do they have good track records. You're wasting untold amounts of resources all to avoid teaching a compsci student how to use malloc. Instead you're giving them a frontend for malloc and claiming it's safer. When in reality every method proposed to be better than malloc since the 60s has proven to be unsecure over and over again. Why not just teach them how to drive a nail properly?

If they can't then they shouldn't be writing systems code anyway. You can not delegate away this type of problem. Anyone that's bought into the propaganda blitz for Rust isn't too bright I'm sorry to say. You should be suspect of such things by default when the entire big tech alliance and the US Government are promoting it. It's simply yet another way to take more power away from the end user and turn the workstation into a dumb terminal. It wastes time, electricity, human resources and it does nothing useful.

If it's such a great language how come they fought tooth and nail against anyone else implementing an independent Rust compiler? Why does the Rust compiler such after so many years of development? Why can't it run on anything but x86-64 and ARM? How come no one wants to port it to anything else? Why is it being shoehorned into stuff like the Linux kernel when people clearly don't want it? These are questions you should be asking yourself.

But we can't have discussions like that anymore. Like the systemd init we're told just to shut up. Votes are taken without allowing the wider community to be included. Any flaws in the project are hand waved away as being nonsense and the dastardly "haters". The developers of such projects insult anyone outside of their circle and regularly ban them.

Nothing original or useful has been coded in Rust. It only has re-implementations of stuff written in C/C++. All those re-implementations takes hours sometimes days to compile compared to C/C++ versions that compile in seconds-minutes. The most popular project for Rust (Firefox) tripled compile times once it was included. Yet it solved nothing. There are still regular exploits and the 20+ year old memory leak bug is still there.

Again; Better training and skilled labor. That is the answer to the spooky/security problem. You can have all the locked doors and access codes you want. If the idiot manning the front desk lets someone waltz in anyway because they were wearing a high-vis vest and a hardhat that's a people problem. Not a technology problem.

Rust projects are not intended to be distributed as source code for end users to compile like C/C++ and most everything else. They're intended to be distributed at binaries that you can not audit. Including the compiler itself. In addition to all of that; The syntax is ass. If it were worth using and solved any real problem they wouldn't have to artificially promote it everywhere everyday. Nor would they have to resort to banning and silencing opposition.

Rust is a virus.

I think it's telling that one of the top ranking security researchers in C still finds himself having to look back and catch himself writing security exploits.

Your rambling just feels like you want to get angry at things than promote a better alternative.

The level of arrogance your rant proposes, as if you as some infallible god, is telling of your mental degradation.

>>1611
yuno drops out of yamabuki to go work at a farm...... the manga can get dark at times

>>1469
My question is, why not Ada? The US government itself commissioned it for these kinds of use-cases back in 70s for these exact kinds of problems.

>>1472
(Didn't watch the video either) In terms of writing secure software specifically, it's weakly typed, lacks runtime security features like automatic bounds and range checking, has very little in the way of built-in error handling, and is full of undefined behavior. It's a language where you need to write code in a very particular, somewhat counterintuitive way to reliably know whether it's actually doing what you told it to or just spewing out nonsense.

>>1565
>To the point where we now have people that know nothing about how the actual computer works
I've always loathed when people refer to "the computer" as if it's a thing that exists. Even if we're only talking about the standard Von Neumann architecture + cache + MMU + secondary storage configuration, which wasn't actually the standard for consumer-end computers until the 1990s (less than 40 years ago), different computers work very differently under the hood, and operating systems and compilers do an absolute ton to hide those differences from you.

people like the idea that you can write C safely and that it just takes more effort, but statistics just don't work that way, it's pretty consistently like working with more and more exposed spinning blades and hoping you never once get a cut because C makes obscenely bad decisions (the longer I stare at what is considered undefined behavior, the more I wonder why it wasn't defined what should happen in these cases -- even if it's not useful behavior, it should be specified what a compiler should generate)
I guess if you specifically know your compiler isn't gonna do something stupid in an undefined behavior case and you turn optimizations off, you can have your attempt at getting a portable assembly and not get screwed too badly. Here's hoping you don't get a memory leak or don't start writing out of bounds.

I don't like the way Rust looks, I don't like Mozilla and haven't in years (they do at least have a very good reason to want a better language than C or C++, given the state Firefox was in -- full disclosure: I am in fact typing this in Firefox), I don't like a lot about it. It's still more sensible to write in Rust than it is in C.

>>1785
Ada has had very low adoption. I suspect there are a lot of reasons for that, but it's a chicken and egg problem.

>>1788
Primagen who used to be full on Rust pushing, recently started saying he like Zig more. But it's a bunch of hopping around because Linux diehards are so against letting Rust get a chance and Windows is an unknown

The Rust in Linux thing is just pathetic old guys preventing new generation from getting a chance because they don't want to document their APIs
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240828211117.9422-1-wedsonaf@gmail.com/

Listening to people like this is downright frustrating

>>1788
My biggest problem with Rust is the development model. A language, especially a language aiming for safety and security in the way Rust is, should really be defined by a stable spec. Instead, it's defined by a single reference implementation that's developed like a web browser.

But as a language, it's got too much C++ and not enough C. Way too big, way too complex, way too confusing. My ideal systems language would basically be a stricter, more explicit C with opt-out run-time safety features like bounds checking.

>>1469
>Alphabet inc wants everyone to code in their language that they lobby
But it's not EEE right gaiz?

>>1837
No, it's called Swift