I’m mainly using duckduckgo for 7 years now. If I can’t find something with it, I try startpage, which sometimes helps.

Rust. It’s so good, it can’t be popular enough.

good one :'D

Bringing more modern tools and features into C++ is good. Acting as if that would make it equally suitable for new projects or even equally safe as languages that don’t (yet) suffer from carrying around a ton of legacy garbage nobody should use (both in terms of features and std items) is ridiculous though.

Kinda sad how that guy destroys his reputation so late in his life. I mean he actually contributed a lot to the field of software development, but just refuses to accept that C++ days are thankfully over. The language has grown into a complete abomination, but all the experience we gained during its long history (good and bad) are extremely valuable for designing new languages from now on. One can’t rescue a design by just adding things to it (regardless of the kind of design), that’s just a simple truth. Thus, a backwards compatible C++ can never become even half as good as rust is already today (and there’s of course always room for improvement). But that’s not because bjarne did something stupid, but because humanity as a whole didn’t know better back than. He could just accept that, embrace new technology, retire in dignity, be remembered as highly admired and appreciated. Instead he acts like a butthurt idiot, trying to defend that cars shouldn’t have seatbelts, because if everyone drives carefully, nothing bad will happen anyway. Pathetic.

Id say it’s experience by the programmer that is at fault, and that’s due to this bootcamp nature of learning programming.

You are getting downvoted, because this is factually proven wrong by studies and internal analysis of several huge companies (e.g. google/android and microsoft). A huge number of exploitable bugs are preventable using memory safe languages, nowadays even without performance costs (Rust).

Apart from that your point is orthogonal to the point of the post. You can have better trained coders and have them use better, safer technologies.

We could also just train every driver more thoroughly including mental training and meditation to make sure they are more calm and focussed when driving and we maybe wouldn’t need seatbelts anymore. But:

1. Is that a realistic scenario?
2. Why not use seatbelts anyway, so there’s a higher chance of not dying if some driver didn’t sleep well that day?

I knew it!! It’s a very typical unemotional style. I think GPT learned a lot from corporate communication xD

Rust by a big margin.

Rust. The language is called Rust. And it should be used for everything!

I think there were probably times where software that got shipped actually worked. So you bought it and you could use it, no need for “maintenance”. I generally don’t think that’s the right word since software doesn’t decay on its own, so there’s nothing to “maintain” actively. Apart from compatibility of course, but if that breaks (e.g. with newer OS or hardware), it would make sense to pay for an update if you need it. Makes a lot more sense than those disgusting subscription scams that adobe is pulling off (and every other company seems to follow).

Yes, JS is equally terrible! At least we can agree on that :-P

And I also understand that PHP (just like most technologies) can be very efficient to work with if you are used to it and know it very well.

PHP grew “organically” out of a perl library. There was never a consistent plan/idea about the set of abstractions it provides, the type system, builtin functions etc… Everything has been bolted on here and there, some additions good, some bad, some terrible pitfalls. A language with builtin operators that are basically unusable (comparison!) and where some functions return false when the input is invalid, is really fundamentally broken. I agree that many of the worst failures of PHP have been (kind of) fixed after PHP5 and that’s nice for large existing PHP codebases (mediawiki, wordpress, nextcloud, typo3). But I just can’t understand why one would start new projects in PHP in a world where so many very well designed and well thought through languages exist.

Edit: First sentence is misleading. Of course it wasn’t a perl lib, but basically a thrown together bunch of functionality, unified into one package, so it can replace using various perl libraries. The syntax was also very inspired by perl.

To me it seems like the internet is full of JS apologists. Maybe it’s just YouTube xD

JS is horse shit. Instead of trying to improve it or using that high level scripting language as a compilation target (wtf?!), we should deprecate it entirely and put all efforts into web assembly.

HELL NO! If you split that function into three, but these always have to be called in succession, you win nothing but make your code WAY harder to read/follow.

Hahaha this is great! All points are basically entirely obvious and common sense and then you hit us with that ridiculous statement about PHP. Outrageous!

Yes, that optimization is finally enabled now. But even without it, programmers are less defensive when writing rust because of the freedom of UB, so they write more optimal code and use better architectures before the compiler even comes into play. It doesn’t show in micro benchmarks, but in more complex software that has been written in rust from the start it’s pretty obvious.

And, even more importantly: Depending on the use case, that work is not wasted! “You have a bug in your code” is very possible (more unlikely in rust due to its design, but still). If that bug triggers UB, chances are high you habe an exploitable security problem there. If it instead triggers a panic due to rusts checks, the app stopps in a clean way with a decent message and without a security vulnerability.

I don’t doubt that you can easily craft micro benchmarks out of very specific cases. My point was, that in real world applications, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages easily! And in a very tight loop of performance critical code where this might not be the case, you can still use unsafe and disable checks very carefully where you control the invariants yourself.

I’m not talking about companies that use windows vs companies that use mac but about the systems themselves. It’s very possible that most companies that use macs are generally better equipped, treat their devices better, upgrade more often, etc… But that’s a correlation, not a causation. You are right about the quality baseline because apple forces them to buy very specific hardware. But if they’d instead spend the same money for a windows machine and set it up decently, I would prefer that by a lot. MacOS is just terrible. It’s less keyboard friendly, always messy, forces users into a overpriced and shitty proprietary lock-in ecosystem, etc.

I’m not sure how long I’ll say that though since microsoft really manages to make windows so much worse with every version they release, it has also reached a barely usable state to be honest.