According to your other answers, you have already concluded that opposing RIIR is due to a hatred for Rust. I doubt there will be any convincing of you, I did attempt it when I replied to one of your comments.
I'd question your competence if you think you know better than Google, Linux kernel devs and GCHQ.
Could I not say the same though? Ada is used in avionics, air traffic control, railways, banking, military and space technology, i.e. critical software. Are they wrong but they do not know it yet? Should they switch to Rust? Either way, I find your conclusions questionable.
According to your other answers, you have already concluded that opposing RIIR is due to a hatred for Rust.
I refuse to discuss castles in the sky so let's get one thing straight: there is no such thing as "RIIR". It does not exist and never did. That's just a coined term by the detractors so they can have a boogeyman to shake their head at and pretend they are smarter and know best -- which is pretty rich when it comes from C/C++ devs, I have to say; not a month goes by without us getting news that the "just don't write bugs, duh!" crowd has produced yet another privilege escalation bug that, surprise surprise, comes from lack of memory safety (lol). And people still argue Rust doesn't help even in this thread, when memory safety is Rust's one of the top value-adds.
Now it's my turn to shake my head. Right back at you.
Tradeoffs exist, you are aware of that I am sure. Some people evaluate Rust and find it a good fit, others don't. Both are 100% fine. You seem to have a problem with the former though.
I never said Ada is not good btw, don't straw-man me, that's not arguing in good faith (though I took the obvious bait because that much was pretty clear already). I said that Ada was not good for the projects I evaluated, nothing else. For whoever it works well then by all means, keep using it! We don't exist to evangelize technology, we exist to get stuff done. If tech X or Y makes that easier, cheaper, more reliable etc. then we should swallow (ideally, destroy) our bias and use the right tool for the job. Can you do that? I know I can, I have my doubts about you however.
You seem to be under the illusion that there are hordes of imaginary zealots out there going around telling people EVERYTHING should be in Rust. Go touch some grass because that's not true.
(And let me blow your mind: every community has its bad apples. If you chose to judge Rust's viability based on a few loonies then that says bad things about your judgement.)
Since your shtick seems to be "I'll make it look you're the prejudiced guy" then you might as well not bother replying, I just wanted to make the above clear for future readers, not for you. You seem to have made up your mind already, long ago.
You seem to be under the illusion that there are hordes of imaginary zealots out there going around telling people EVERYTHING should be in Rust. Go touch some grass because that's not true.
(And let me blow your mind: every community has its bad apples. If you chose to judge Rust's viability based on a few loonies then that says bad things about your judgement.)
For the readers, too. You did blow my mind though.
Comments
According to your other answers, you have already concluded that opposing RIIR is due to a hatred for Rust. I doubt there will be any convincing of you, I did attempt it when I replied to one of your comments.
Could I not say the same though? Ada is used in avionics, air traffic control, railways, banking, military and space technology, i.e. critical software. Are they wrong but they do not know it yet? Should they switch to Rust? Either way, I find your conclusions questionable.
I refuse to discuss castles in the sky so let's get one thing straight: there is no such thing as "RIIR". It does not exist and never did. That's just a coined term by the detractors so they can have a boogeyman to shake their head at and pretend they are smarter and know best -- which is pretty rich when it comes from C/C++ devs, I have to say; not a month goes by without us getting news that the "just don't write bugs, duh!" crowd has produced yet another privilege escalation bug that, surprise surprise, comes from lack of memory safety (lol). And people still argue Rust doesn't help even in this thread, when memory safety is Rust's one of the top value-adds.
Now it's my turn to shake my head. Right back at you.
Tradeoffs exist, you are aware of that I am sure. Some people evaluate Rust and find it a good fit, others don't. Both are 100% fine. You seem to have a problem with the former though.
I never said Ada is not good btw, don't straw-man me, that's not arguing in good faith (though I took the obvious bait because that much was pretty clear already). I said that Ada was not good for the projects I evaluated, nothing else. For whoever it works well then by all means, keep using it! We don't exist to evangelize technology, we exist to get stuff done. If tech X or Y makes that easier, cheaper, more reliable etc. then we should swallow (ideally, destroy) our bias and use the right tool for the job. Can you do that? I know I can, I have my doubts about you however.
You seem to be under the illusion that there are hordes of imaginary zealots out there going around telling people EVERYTHING should be in Rust. Go touch some grass because that's not true.
(And let me blow your mind: every community has its bad apples. If you chose to judge Rust's viability based on a few loonies then that says bad things about your judgement.)
Since your shtick seems to be "I'll make it look you're the prejudiced guy" then you might as well not bother replying, I just wanted to make the above clear for future readers, not for you. You seem to have made up your mind already, long ago.
For the readers, too. You did blow my mind though.