It has been a couple of years now and the response to these articles is always the same. The person making the comment cannot accept that they produce code with bugs. So the problem has to be that the people being measured in the article must not know what they are doing.

Look at the source of these articles though. We are being asked to believe that the code in Android, Windows, AI frameworks, and databases are all being pumped out by junior devs. It is not that Rust results in fewer bugs than C++ generally, it is that Google engineers have not been properly trained or motivated.

I mean, the denial is Sith level strong in these people.

This is absolute gold.

Exactly what evidence is there that bugs in new code are from new devs? To me, it feels like you have fallen victim to motivated reasoning.

Thank you for suggesting we not harass anyone. That is a lot better than I have seen elsewhere related to this.

Basilisk is the odd one out here. It is a continuation of pre-Servo Firefox ( Firefox before Rust ). It is not exactly a “new” engine.

Ladybird is probably the most exciting project as it is most likely to create a new independent browser suitable for daily use.

Servo was very exciting back when Mozilla was heavily invested in it. Sadly, it was long dormant. It really seems to be heating up again though so that is awesome.

Mozilla is not really associated with Servo anymore.

I would be surprised to see Firefox move to Servo.

Perhaps the fact that Google is keen on Rust internally is part of what Ted Tso does not like about it ( he works for Google ).

Many outside the Rust community see the enthusiasm for Rust as overblown. Perhaps they think that pushing back on Rust to create a brake on this momentum is restoring the balance or something.

One thing I have noticed, when devs push back on inferior languages, they are able to cite all kinds of technical reasons for doing so. When they cannot come up with reasons, perhaps that is evidence that the language is pretty good.

Ted’s rant basically says “we have more code so we matter more and that will be true for a long time”. I agree with the assessment that this kind of blatant tribalism is “non-technical nonsense”.

Try buying deodorant at a supermarket in South Korea. Impossible.

If usability is the goal, then ReactOS is not the answer.

Do you write long emails? If you are like me, you write clear, detailed emails that nobody reads.

In business at least, most people treat emails like text messages. If they are too long, their level of comprehension goes down.

I agree. I would WAY rather wait the extra 5 seconds and then walk safely across without traffic.

I really hate it when the LAST car of many does this. Especially when I have kids with me. I don’t want them to walk in front of cars for one thing. Because it is less safe. Now I have to trust you. And many cars have started going again while I try to get my child ( that I just told to wait until the cars pass ) to go in front of the one that stopped.

If you are the last of several cars, PLEASE just keep going.

If you mean Dick Cheney, you are not wrong.

She would just need to schedule surgery or something.

I have wanted to like D for so long but it has just not been able to create a cohesive story outside its own bubble. It feels like it is going nowhere. Certainly, given its ages, there is no obvious path to popularity.

This is literally the text from one of the links above that assert that Andreas is a fascist:

“I’m doing my best to build something I believe in, and everyone is welcome to participate as long as we can set our differences aside. ”

I cannot imagine how lopsided your world-view needs to be to interpret this kind of neutrality as “fascist”.

The only conclusion that I can draw is that some people are so polarized ( black and white ) that they can only interpret people that are not “with” them as “against” them.

And to clarify “with” above means “shares my extreme views and expectations”.

If that is true, it is tragically sad.

This is a risky comment I know but projecting the politics of “certain kinds of conservatives” onto a Swedish person feels political to me. Why do we feel we know his thought? Certainly not because of the political climate elsewhere I hope.

After reading the SerenityOS comment, I find it a lot easier to believe that he thought following the long history of apolitical norms in language use was the safe, non-political option. Little did he know?

I realize that many people now see “historical norms” as implicitly tainted by adjacent beliefs that many also have been present historically. That is fine. Go ahead and change the language. Language evolution is natural. I have no problem with that. But can we not also acknowledge that many people simply learned to use language within a context that had nothing to do with these issues? Isn’t “lack of awareness” or even “lack of a position” a more likely explanation than “sides with the enemy”.

I see no evidence that the SerenityOS guy himself meant anything political. I do not believe that I can tell his stance on trans issues at all from what he said. And that is the problem.

Insisting that other people that do not share your passion for language reform are anything other than neutral to your issues is very political. You are projecting some very unkind attributes onto somebody that does not deserve that treatment.

How is persecution of others a valid way to defend a minority? All I see is one innocent comment asking to be left out of a political debate and then months or years of aggressive attacks in response. Has he even responded to these attacks?

At the time the comment was written, I think it could have been included in the project or not and it would have meant nothing either way. As somebody that believes trans people are just people, it honestly would not have occurred to me to object to either text.

Frankly, the level of vitriol that has been directed towards him totally vindicates his initial comment. The level of politics is absurd. I am quite sure that many people witnessing these attacks are turned off. Some that were previously pretty neutral have probably been driven away. Others will fear “trans” as a dangerous, radical movement.

What is the actual goal here? It cannot actually be harmony and inclusion. Nobodycould be pushing that so ineffectively.

The text you quote literally appears under the heading “Apple Platforms”. Gee, why don’t they mention anybody else in the Apple section?

Immediately below that, there is a cross-platform section where they say “SwiftArgumentParser and Swift’s growing package ecosystem make developing cross-platform command-line tools a breeze.”

So, at worst, it sounds like the main Swift project may leave you to heft some of the GUI load yourself. Except 99% of what Ladybird does is under the hood processing that creates bitmaps for display. There is hardly any GUI really. Plus, Swift offers C++ interop.

Ladybird stems from SerenityOS where they write everything themselves. They have their own networking, GUI libraries, and crypto. Since splitting, they have adopted font rendering and media libraries from other projects ( largely available as C code I believe ).

Swift is cross-platform in all the ways the Ladybird gang needs it to be. It uses LLVM ( very cross-platform ) and the Swift compiler is meant to be cross-platform. All that will evolve and improve independent of Ladybird itself. The Ladybird team does not need many libraries from the Swift ecosystem. What they will need is pretty basic and fundamental.

Think back to Rust and Mozilla. When Mozilla rewrote the CSS parser in Rust, how much GUI rework was required? None? The CSS parser fell into the space defined by “command-line tools”.

Apple is still very vested in the success of Swift overall and also friendly to the cross-platform agenda.

What significant beneficiary is backing Rust?

At a deeper level, they both heavily lean on LLVM which of course is heavily supported by many players ( including Apple ) and which is also deeply cross-platform.

IRL many sleeping bags have handles on both sides of the zipper.

Emphatically agreed