I think Zig would do better than Go at things like kernels, drivers, game engines, lower level sorts of things. Edited to add the obvious: SPIR-V, for instance.
Of course there’s lots of programming that can afford to pay for GC side effects, if there weren’t we wouldn’t have invented GC, but it’s a little less universal, a little less ‘system’.
For me, I came to Zig after horrible cross-platform experiences led me to try going all the way back to C and I found that I was spending way too much time learning to deal with accidental complexity instead of essential complexity. (Respect to the C masters but I failed to adapt.)
My interpretation of what they said is closer to “we already improved compilation speeds by 4x and we did it without compromising our plans to go much further - also this PR introduces specific timing bugs.”
I probably still won’t trust it on a critical system without a reputable audit though, I think I’d still prefer to either trust Microsoft or Apple or go run OpenBSD or Linux instead.
Okay, so your source is Giuliani. Well that is an answer, I guess. Sorry I was looking for a news source and not a political one. This is not nearly as credible - until evidence reaches a courtroom - as “somebody on the internet”.
It still might be a reasonable tradeoff for me, for some projects but regardless: thank you, that adds some nuance that I didn't get from your earlier comment.
I've been actively wondering about generating some efficient and portable C code, and for this project it wouldn't be super-complicated, but undefined behavior is the one thing that keeps me away. C++ and Rust and C# and many other languages all add wonderful things, with side effects on portability, clarity, learning curve, language stability, etc. - wonderful things that I don't always want in a twenty-year-stable system.
Anyway, thank you for these, I'm definitely going to look further here.
I think they just missed the memo that Windows now has a modern Chromium-based Edge option for a web view component. I mean, before that, the situation was really pretty bad, but now I'd expect it to be fine. (Have not tested it yet.)
It sounds like that, but I don't think it's really true. I think that only means that with the previous tradeoffs available, they chose to keep being tracked. No reason not to try something new and maybe they'll choose something different.
I find the way you argue very frustrating. I respond to "This is a great way to make sure you have an unjust community wherein no one has the opportunity to defend themselves and speaking ill of someone is enough to evict them." by saying "It's a community they lead, they get to decide who is welcome." but then you shift the goalposts.
You slide right past my assertion that the Tor community must be able to decide who is welcome in the Tor community and refer to a nebulous "privacy community" now. Is the "privacy community" even at issue? I don't know what that is. If there is a group called the "privacy community", then yes, I agree, they should decide who is welcome in their club.
As far as I know, he's not being prosecuted. The only rights he acquires from not being prosecuted are that he won't go to jail. Right? He doesn't have any automatic right to join my club, your club, or the Tor community's club.
A slippery slope, if you will? No, let this case stand on its own:
The leaders of the Tor community were shown evidence they considered to be sufficient to boot this guy. It's a community they lead, they get to decide who is welcome. You want to start your own community and welcome him with open arms, you go right ahead.
To your point though, if Rust is getting it done, go for it. A lot of people still write those in C though.