The bedrock of modern civilizations is expensive to develop, buggy and unergonomic though.
If you make C run, you probably (I’m not sure, would have to verify) can make rust run. And if there isn’t yet, there will probably soon be a C compiler written in rust, so you can choose to bootstrap from wherever you prefer.
C’s ABI will probably last longer than C, since there is not a stable rust ABI though.
No they don’t. If you ban guns from citizens, police would still have guns in the US.
The argument of “Good guys with a gun” is about citizens not able to kill the “bad guy with a gun” before the police arrive.
I believe the game was 10 days old when they shut it down. There are no concord fans. You can’t have fans in 10 days.
My guess is that they knew it was going to be a shit game, but realized too deep in the development phase. So they just released it as soon as possible and didn’t waste more money on it (marketing). My guess is that the released it instead of cancel just in case they were wrong and people actually liked it.
To be fair, mechanic items, and especially electronic ones were far more repairable back then.
You could see, desolder and solder components without issue. Nowadays most of the electronics are inside chips, and only the components that need to be physically big (like those responsible for the power supply) are human sized. Sure, there are some small SMD that can be manually diagnosed and replaced, but even then you often need a lot of skill and equipment.
The good thing about Box::leak() is that it returns a raw *mut pointer. So you need unsafe{} to dereference it. Might as well: let my_ref = &mut unsafe{*ptr}; while you are at it, so you have a perfectly normal rust reference, so the function signatures don’t need any change.
The problem with Rc is that it would also require a RefCell most of the time. So the whole thing would be filled with Rc<RefCell<T>>. With the required .borrow_mut(). It would both do a pain to do and undo.
And of course I want to undo it, because RC is a shitty GC.
I’ve re-thought about the problem and I think for prototyping I should just Box::leak() and work with raw pointers.
This approach also doesn’t allow you to not learn the borrow checker, since leaking everything is not a good memory management strategy, but might be fine for rapidly iterating on a design.
EDIT: maybe use a leak!() Macro that does Box::leak(Box::new()) in debug mode but panics on release (as long as you execute once in release it should be fine).
Another user already proposed Odin, but no one yet Jonathan blow’s unnamed programming language (people call it jay). Those are the 2 programming languages that came to mind when I think of game development.
I haven’t tried either so I don’t know if they fit you, but they are new languages so they should avoid java’s and C++'s pitfalls.
Interfaces (traits in rust) are the best imo. Way better than raw structs in C or the mess that is inheritance.
What I don’t like about go’s interfaces is that they’re implemented implicitly. I much prefer java’s and Rust’s way to implicitly say which classes/structs extend/implement which interfaces.
Using “clever” ways to disable the borrow checker is one of the few things I don’t like about rust. I much rather it having a “borrow checker version” and a “garbage collector version”. That way we could rapidly iterate through design choices with the GC, and once the design has proven good, apply lifetimes and such to use with the borrow checker. The only downside to this I can think of is that most would just leave it in the GC version and not bother to move to borrow checker. But that’s fine by me, rust has many other features to take advantage of. As long as no GC libraries are allowed in crates.io, it should be fine.
You can just. Have datastruct be mutable if you want. Immutable by default doesn’t mean you can’t make variables mutable.
My favourite is when every error is an HTTP Bad Request with no body. Absolutely wonderful to use those APIs
Yes.it is hype. Because it is a product still in development. Windows is not yet officially supported, and they announced Linux like one month ago.
It still lacks some basic features. However, what they already have looks good, it is much more performant that vscode.
Storing them in files with correct permissions.
Git is not the only version control software out there, and not the first one either.
Facebook for example is famous for not using git. Because their own modified copy of mercurial fits their needs better.
Microsoft didn’t use git until relatively recently either. They had to make some big contributions to make it work for their system.
It still goes to show that there’s no fully tested C code. I’m sure OpenSSH has had the eyes of thousands of security researchers in it. Yet it still has memory-related bugs.
Just recently a bug was found in openssh that would let you log into the root user of any machine. With extreme skill and luck of course, but it was possible.
OpenSsh is probably one of the most safe C programs out there with the most eyes on it. Since it’s the industry standard to remotely log in into any machine.
There is no such thing as fully tested and safe C. You can only hope that you find the bug before the attacker does. Which requires constant mantainance.
The the about rust is that the code can sit there unchanged and “rust”. It’s not hard to make a program in 2019 that hasn’t needed any maintainance since then, and free of memory bugs.
To be fair, in that article mentions the way to get rust from C. Sure, there is not a compiler written in C, but C is down there in the list of compilers needed for rust, so “just” need to compile some other compilers in the middle.