petmon

Why? Did Fuschia enable any new features on Google Home Hubs which would have been more difficult/impossible with a Linux kernel? It's an honest question, my bias is that Fuschia is a solution in search of a problem but I am happy to be convinced otherwise.

Imagine if what were Trump? Per the article, the Trump administration sought "help from the tech companies to combat misinformation."

China has already banned Google which is of a similar scale and impact.

How would you handle clicks and stuff?

Is the neutron similarly complicated?

It's common in other programming languages for string literals to have type string. It's weird and confusing that they do not in both Rust and in C++.

I think you DO have to know about those, or close analogs, in writing Rust. I like both C++ and Rust but I will rise to defend C++.

1. Exception safety becomes "catch_unwind." You might object that nobody cares about that, but major C++ codebases (Google, LLVM, Mozilla) don't care about exceptions; they are built with -fno-exceptions.

2. Move semantics in C++ are annoying, and so is the borrow checker. In Rust you get hit by things like "this code is fine here, but you aren't allowed to refactor it into a function" because there's no interprocedrural visibility into struct fields.

3. Meta-template higgery-jiggery is real and bad in C++, but has a mirror in Rust. With C++ duck-typed generics you write dumb code that does the thing, and then you can refine it with hilariously awful techniques like SFINAE. In Rust you're googling higher-ranked trait bounds before you can even write the thing. What does `for` do again? I think "strongly-typed language, duck-typed generics" is a bit of a sweet spot and C++ has lucked its way into it.

4. "30 years of cruft" means things like "I speak C preprocessor" which is practical. C compat is why C++ is both so awkward and so successful. There's no smooth ramp from C++ to Rust, the way there was from C to C++; that's a choice and maybe the right choice but it has a price.