> Anything that can be neatly siphoned off from that more complex imperative world, should be.
No it really shouldn't. Just look at JS. It's a complete mess. And HTML would get there in a short time if they were to adopt "anything that can be neatly siphoned". The problem is that data binding is actually quite complex. I have seen data binding done 10 different ways in different languages and they all had their flaws. It will be very difficult indeed to come up with such a standard that is actually being used universally.
If it is not, what sense does it make to add it to the standard? But for it to be used a lot, it would actually need to solve most problems in most businesses for the forseeable future.
Given the fact that the Web apparently still hasn't figured out quite how UI development is supposed to work (judging by the 1 new language feature, 10 new frameworks, 100 new libraries developed each day), it will be a very poor idea to start baking half baked stuff into a standard.
> but certainly enabling these things to be trafficked does not provide net positive to the world.
You really wanna go there? Seriously?
Nobody forces you to use drugs. It doesn't even harm anyone else directly. He didn't even sell drugs directly, he offered a marketplace for others to sell drug on. What about pawn shops? Should we lock em all up in super max prisons for providing weapons to people? I mean here the intent is at least directly to harm people other than the client, while with drugs its just to harm clients.
Net positive... LOL Name a single politican that does provide a net positive to the world. How about Trump? What about locking him up? Did he provide a net positive to the world? He has a list of crimes that could wrap buildings in documents, however he is president of the US, which somehow manages to kill more people in a year than this guy could have killed indirectly in a life-time. But hey, yeah lock em up!
> so it's a clear reflection of his morals and empathy.
Oh is it? So what now? We lock up everything who doesn't have your high moral standards in a federal super max? Oh wait, your morals seem a bit off actually. I think you are kindof insane. How about locking you up? Do you provide a net positive to the world? Probably not. Wait, let me just call 911 so they can lock you away for life.
Although I am 100% in agreement with your stance on the issue, I do feel that you are far too emotionally invested.
Your comment reads like you care what random strangers say on the internet. You shouldn't.
Despite the fact that you are right, others will not agree with you, and in fact may not even give a shit about the issue at all. They're humans, and every human is different. That's why we're so damn interesting.
The more you emotionally invest in what these people have to say, the more you will be dragged down into the abyss by them. Remember, that's not their abyss, that's your abyss. You created it by being so bothered by them.
This is my take on it, and if you have a different opinion, dude feel free to share I'm happy to hear! You have to approach everything on the internet as if it were an LSAT question you have to argue from an opposing viewpoint to pass the test. Make the best argument you possibly can, but don't be emotionally invested in it!
Again, I'm on your side. But I want you to hang around for the revolution, instead of having a heart-attack before we storm the gated communities.
> Expressive, pretty powerful, ML and Haskell inspired type system
This is not a reason to use rust. It's like saying "I like Ferraries, because they drive fast", failing to specify WHY you need to drive fast (you usually really don't, unless you are on a race track)
> Memory safe. In higher level code you have almost zero justification for `unsafe`, except you really need a C library.
Java, C#, etc.
> Immutable by default. Can feel almost functional, depending on code style.
Okay, however this isn't a big win in practice. Java has this too with @Immutable and mostly that's enough.
> Very coherent language design. The language has few warts, in part thanks to the young age.
Yes, Rust looks fine. Let's see how it evolves. Coherent language design is however again not a reason to use rust, because it fails to mention WHY you need it and WHY it solves a business problem better than Java, C# or C++.
> Great package manager and build system.
Yeah, pretty much all modern languages have that, so it's not worth to even mention. Rust builds are slow, so there is that.
> Great tooling in general (compiler errors, formatter, linter, docs generation, ... )
Really? Ever used Java or C# tooling?
> Library availability is great in certain domains, ok most.
Compared to what? C++? I don't even think there it's true. When comparing to Java or C# library availability and quality is a joke in Rust.
> Statically compiled (though I often wish there was an additional interpreter/repl). Mostly statically linked.
Yeah... What do you need that for? Again no mention of why that's even useful.
> Good performance without much effort.
Like in Java, C# and C++ you mean?
> Good concurrency/parallelism primitives, especially since async
Async is a paradigm that received a lot of criticism lately. It turns out to be cancerous. Fibers will likely replace it and Java is getting it soon. Otherwise yeah, concurrency is something any modern language should solve and maybe Rust has a head-start here. The whole purpose of Rust is focused around safe multi-threading. However other languages don't sleep. You don't switch your company to Rust just because it does one thing better for a couple of years. Other languages will catch up soon.
You seem to be very convinced that Rusts main competitors are Java and C#. I don't think this is usually true. Rusts main competitors are C and C++. I agree that in most cases where Java and C# are possible options they should be prefered over Rust. There are however many situations where neither Java nor C# are options.
> There are however many situations where neither Java nor C# are options.
Not too many anymore, and the space for these situations shrinks over time, rather quickly.
20 years ago, almost everything was implemented in C or C++, for all platforms. The computers didn’t have extra RAM for the GC overhead.
Web sites were the first to migrate, probably because security. Desktop GUI apps followed.
On mobile, before iPhone was launched in 2007, people used a lot of C or C++ there. PalmOS only supported C, Symbian SDK was C++ based, most Windows Mobile apps were written in C or C++. For the same reason, not enough resources for a GC. We now have gigabytes of memory in these devices and it’s no longer the case, on Android it’s almost 100% Java or Kotlin, on iOS it’s Swift.
This is happening with videogames, see Unity3D. Even low level soft-realtime multimedia is good enough for .NET now, here’s an example where my C# implementation delivers same performance as C implementation of VLC player: https://github.com/Const-me/Vrmac/tree/master/VrmacVideo
Pretty sure in a couple of years once MS improves a few relevant things in their .NET core (they need better constant propagation, and NEON support) we’ll see high-performance numeric stuff following the trajectory. The hardware SIMD support in .NET core 3.1 is a good step in the right direction.
Even if it violates conservation of momentum, that doesn't really mean anything, since this is all happening on a quantum scale. It would definitely violate physics if you didn't need to apply a constant energy source for this to work, i.e. just one laser beam that spins in there virtually indefinitely while providing thrust. However, that is not the case.
This device presumably requires a reasonable amount of energy comparable to other existing drives. So what might happen here is a potentially unexplained quantum effect. Quantized Inertia seems like a really reasonable idea. Why wouldn't it be quantized? It doesn't even make sense for it not to be quantized.
It breaks the laws of physics as we know them. But we don't know everything, there is still a remote chance.
Conservation of momentum is so well established by this point, that's it's a very remote chance, and I'd expect it to still be conserved in that case, just through a mechanism we did not anticipate.
I'm just really rooting for new physics here, because I think is been about 70 years since we've had that.
Conservation of momentum is, via Noether's theorem, a mathematically proven consequence of translational symmetry in uniform space, i.e. that physics is not affected by linear movement through uniform space.
The bar for violating that is super high, unless you don't believe in mathematical proof.
Of course the space we occupy is not entirely uniform, due to general relativity, but GR addresses that, and the results are not consistent with em drive results, i.e. momentum is still conserved.
> If you have a Clock ticking for 10,000 years what kinds of generational-scale questions and projects will it suggest?
Like... None? This seems like a complete waste of resources. It's probably a life-like toy from someone with too much money? The world needs more 10,000 year clocks, we don't have any other problems...
If you want a 10,000 clock, you bury a radioactive rock with a note about the decay pattern at the time of creation and future radiologist will know how long it's been "ticking". Problem solved.
Being able to read is helpful. They are "zero cost abstractions". Yes, they are not zero cost, big surprise (I thought they wouldn't produce assembly instructions). A pointer is an indirect reference. But the abstraction around them is zero cost:
i.e. there is no way to end up with faster code that does the same thing, without using the abstraction.
This is the very definition of zero cost abstractions.
What are you talking about? unique_ptr contains a pointer, that's it. Yes, to represent a pointer you have to contain a point. Passing it on or not makes zero difference and using a website that return unoptimized C++, is not a good place to gather intel. unique_ptr is zero cost, unless you use it across library boundaries without LTO.
Dude, read the article?
This is like a cop posing as a cow and trying to say on "slaughterYourCowToday.com": "Hey look, I am actually a real human being, please don't slaughter me"... But hey, the picture of that cow shows a freakin cow. Now the guy drives to the farm and is greeted by a fucking cow. He takes a gun and tries to shoot the cow. But the police rolls in and arrests him for attempted murder...
This is ridiculous and yet another demonstration of the absurdity that they try to sell as US "justice" system.
So let's summarize.
1) Guy is looking for adults on an adult page
2) Adult women(24) with an adult picture says she is 13
3) Guy probably thinks like "okay, doesn't look 13". Which arguably is stupid, given that US citizens should know how stupid the US is when it comes to minors.
4) Talks more
5) Women says again she is 13
6) They agree to meet anyway
7) Guy drives to her home and she greets him. She is obviously a grown women.
8) Guy gets arrested for child rape
Yeah sounds about right.
God bless America!
So let's rewrite the story a bit:
1) Guy is looking for some mint on craigslist
2) When asking the seller why the mint "makes people high", the seller says it's actually weed.
3) Guy thinks, okay, doesn't look like weed, it looks like fucking mint
4) Guy says, I will buy this mint anyway, looks like mint
5) Seller says again "Dude, it's fucking weed, but okay"
6) Seller sells the mint
7) Guy receives the mint in his mailbox and opens it
8) Cool it's mint, smells of mint, looks like mint.
9) Guy gets arrested for drug possession
Erm what?
In the real world, that cop should have been suspended for false advertising and the seller's account as well.
Yeah or looking at it the other way around. If this would replace your human reviewer, then maybe you would do good to have some serious discussions with your HR department...
No it really shouldn't. Just look at JS. It's a complete mess. And HTML would get there in a short time if they were to adopt "anything that can be neatly siphoned". The problem is that data binding is actually quite complex. I have seen data binding done 10 different ways in different languages and they all had their flaws. It will be very difficult indeed to come up with such a standard that is actually being used universally.
If it is not, what sense does it make to add it to the standard? But for it to be used a lot, it would actually need to solve most problems in most businesses for the forseeable future.
Given the fact that the Web apparently still hasn't figured out quite how UI development is supposed to work (judging by the 1 new language feature, 10 new frameworks, 100 new libraries developed each day), it will be a very poor idea to start baking half baked stuff into a standard.