Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

sudo & su Being Rewritten In Rust For Memory Safety

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ryao
    replied
    Originally posted by EvilHowl View Post
    By the way, people that say "C/C++" often think that they are basically the same thing. Do note that while C and C++ may look somewhat similar, C is not a subset of C++. They are very independent languages with different ISO working groups and different features, made for different things. A C developer is not a C++ developer, or the other way around.
    They are basically dialects of the same language. That is how the same compiler frontend for LLVM can support C, C++ as well as Objective C and Objective C++. You would not see the same front end be able to support both C and FORTRAN, since those two are actually different languages.

    Leave a comment:


  • ryao
    replied
    Originally posted by Volta View Post

    'little stronger' - good joke. Linux ate bsd's for breakfast. And the license played big role in this.
    BSD had won until the AT&T lawsuit. The AT&T lawsuit forced everyone to look for alternatives and Linux was the only open source alternative. It succeeded in spite of the license stigmatizing it in business circles for many years.

    Leave a comment:


  • ryao
    replied
    Originally posted by EvilHowl View Post

    I think I chose the wrong wording in my last post. What I really meant is that, as you said, idiomatic C and C++ are very different. They are so different that you should not call yourself a C++ programmer if you are just using iostreams surrounded by C code. That might have been true 30 years ago, but not today.
    One of the main ideas of C++ is that developers can use whatever programming style they want. You can write entirely class free code and still be writing C++. C++ is whatever the C++ compiler will accept.

    Originally posted by EvilHowl View Post
    C has held back C++ so much that I believe the only way to salvage this language is to "break the ABI", remove every bad design decision inspired by the early programming days and C and start over again.
    They already broke the ABI with C++11 and it was a nightmare that nobody wants to repeat. You might as well make your own language like the Carbon guys are doing.
    Last edited by ryao; 07 May 2023, 03:40 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • hotaru
    replied
    Originally posted by Volta View Post

    'little stronger' - good joke. Linux ate bsd's for breakfast. And the license played big role in this.
    the license had very little to do with it. it was at least 90% because of one frivolous lawsuit (USL v. BSDi), in which the BSD license was irrelevant. if USL had somehow won that lawsuit instead of just dragging it out for two years, they definitely would have been coming for Linux next, and Linux would have ended up in the same position the BSDs were in the early 90s.

    Leave a comment:


  • Volta
    replied
    Originally posted by unwind-protect View Post

    Linux grew a little stronger than the BSDs after being introduced around the same time, true. But to attribute all that to the license is misguided.
    'little stronger' - good joke. Linux ate bsd's for breakfast. And the license played big role in this.

    Leave a comment:


  • wertigon
    replied
    Originally posted by Vistaus View Post
    However, my point was not about what's been done to push EV's, but if ICE was dead technology-wise or not. And my previous post outlined that it's not dead technology-wise yet. Whether or not it's *viable* long term is a different subject.
    Well, ICE has stage four incurable cancer, of course, it will never die completely just like horse carriages never went away completely. But it will be gone as a transport method within the next 10-20 years. No matter what anyone thinks, the demise is as certain as the sun rising tomorrow.

    Future is never 100% certain though, but...

    Leave a comment:


  • uxmkt
    replied
    Originally posted by patrakov View Post
    This has already been tried, in the form of OSv by Avi Kivity.
    We had "Kernel Mode Linux" before OSv.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vistaus
    replied
    Originally posted by wertigon View Post

    Oooh boy, there is a whole mountain of evidence here, but there are two main points, both has to do with economics.

    1. EVs are already at both price parity and functional parity with ICE. If you are in the market for a new car, will you go for the car that has a higher purchase cost and 10x worse fuel economy, or the cheaper one with bigger trunk space? Doesn't take a genius to figure out what most people will choose, even if you personally is stubborn about it.

    2. Do you know how expensive gasoline infrastructure is? Who do you think can keep that infrastructure up once 15-30% of current customer base no longer requires gas? What will happen, capitalism baby. Gas pumps will consolidate and shut down starting with the most unprofitable. Within a few years that 5 mile drive to a pump will be 50 miles. A few years after that, you cannot find gas pumps - only gas canisters at an auto parts store.

    So as you can see it is already check mate for ICE. Amazing tech, but BEV was just better.
    1. Depens on the country. In my country (Netherlands), nearly all EV's are still expensive, so most people are still buying ICE's, which are a lot cheaper.

    2. Most cars over here don't run on CNG, but point taken. However, my point was not about what's been done to push EV's, but if ICE was dead technology-wise or not. And my previous post outlined that it's not dead technology-wise yet. Whether or not it's *viable* long term is a different subject.

    Leave a comment:


  • wertigon
    replied
    Originally posted by Vistaus View Post
    What you do you mean ICE is a dead technology? Look at what Mazda's been doing with their ICE engines in the past couple of years and they're still not done improving ICE. They're still working on improving CO2 reduction while at the same time boosting the output, and of course their tilting ICE engine that's due for debut in the Mazda 3 soon. It's only dead in the sense that it will be replaced by EV, mostly due to the EU and US pushing for EV, but it's not dead technology-wise.
    Oooh boy, there is a whole mountain of evidence here, but there are two main points, both has to do with economics.

    1. EVs are already at both price parity and functional parity with ICE. If you are in the market for a new car, will you go for the car that has a higher purchase cost and 10x worse fuel economy, or the cheaper one with bigger trunk space? Doesn't take a genius to figure out what most people will choose, even if you personally is stubborn about it.

    2. Do you know how expensive gasoline infrastructure is? Who do you think can keep that infrastructure up once 15-30% of current customer base no longer requires gas? What will happen, capitalism baby. Gas pumps will consolidate and shut down starting with the most unprofitable. Within a few years that 5 mile drive to a pump will be 50 miles. A few years after that, you cannot find gas pumps - only gas canisters at an auto parts store.

    So as you can see it is already check mate for ICE. Amazing tech, but BEV was just better.

    Leave a comment:


  • ssokolow
    replied
    Originally posted by EvilHowl View Post
    C has held back C++ so much that I believe the only way to salvage this language is to "break the ABI", remove every bad design decision inspired by the early programming days and C and start over again.
    At which point, you lose enough compatibility that the value proposition approaches "and we need another Rust... why?".

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X