DAV1D: A New AV1 Video Decoder From The VideoLAN Developers

[schmidtbag]

All I'm saying, schmidtbag, is that you sound like you want to accept the term "illegal" without question. It's not always obvious.

Like I said, it doesn't matter whether I or anyone accepts it. I don't "want" to accept if something is illegal, I just simply do, because my opinion on the law makes no difference in the end. If something is currently illegal in many countries then you have a reason to worry about the safety and integrity of the content, assuming you are acquiring it in a way to circumvent that country's laws. So, whether or not you agree with piracy laws, the fact of the matter is those laws exist, so the VLC devs are not responsible for protecting you in the event you download an illegal copy of a movie infected with malware.
So
If you consume media in a legal manner, you don't have anything to worry about, and therefore, there's no need to bloat the code for added security.
Of course, this all depends on what type of law it is and where you're acquiring it from.

[pal666]

Language statistics on Firefox include all of its libraries as well, not just the code exclusive to Firefox.

but i constantly hear about multitude of wonderful rust libraries on this forum

Also, when the style system was rewritten in Rust the amount of code in it was cut in half compared to C++ version

well, when i last looked, mozilla used some abomination instead of c++, in proper c++ you surely could cut it even further

Firefox is a big project that cannot be rewritten overnight.

and even in ten years. but still people come and demand that someone rewrites some project in rust for them

[pal666]

Well "you" may not require an encoder but "we" certainly do.

"you" may require an encoder but "we" certainly do not.

By the same logic "we" would not require a Rust compiler (since that's what the thread seems to be hijacked to) because Microsoft already has one internally and "we" don't need it to run their proprietary binaries, right?

we certainly don't require rust compiler either, it can't compile c++ code

[pal666]

I don't see any difference between the two languages (C and rust).

one is a standard which can be compiled by many compilers for many platforms. the other is one implementation. now you see it?

[pal666]

I think the distinction needs to be made that while Rust is technically portable (targets LLVM)

that doesn't cut it. llvm does not cover every platform in existence

[pal666]

If they chose C++, they would need to worry about sticking to a very unidiomatic graphene-thin subset of C++17.

i'm genuinely interested what do you have in mind, please explain

[pal666]

I guess Rust is the new systemd.

no. systemd is everywhere, for rust you need microscope

[jacob]

"you" may require an encoder but "we" certainly do not.

we certainly don't require rust compiler either, it can't compile c++ code

Well it looks like "you" require to expand your horizons a bit.

[andreano]

> If they chose C++, they would need to worry about sticking to a very unidiomatic graphene-thin subset of C++17.

What do you have in mind?

Being so careful about memory management that you're no longer writing idiomatic C++.

Case in point: Slices.

* If your codebase consists of functions that operate on arrays, this is a profoundly influential concept (to your function signatures anyway).
* My impression of codec code is: Arrays. And functions. And pages and pages of static const arrays.

Go and Rust have slices. C++17 has only string slices (std::string_view), but you can of course implement your own generic slice<T> yourself. Or stick with pointers and sizes like it's C → problem solved.

For those that may not know; this is the wrong way to write functions that take array-like arguments:

void f1(const std::string&);
void f2(const std::vector<T>&);

[Weasel]

this is the wrong way

Yeah the right way is:

void f1(const char*);
void f2(const T*);
// and so on

...obviously, high level abstractions for interfaces are retarded.