samdoesnothing

It's just moving the goalposts. "If it compiles it works" to "it eliminates all memory bugs" to "well, it's safer than c...".

If Rust doesn't live up to its lofty promises, then it changes the cost-benefit analysis. You might give up almost anything to eliminate all bugs, a lot to eliminate all memory bugs, but what would you give up to eliminate some bugs?

I think it's pretty telling that there are people in this thread trying to pre-empt the expected criticism in this thread. Might be worth thinking why there might be criticism, and why it wouldn't be the case if it was a different language.

> All bugs is typically a strawman typically only used by detractors. The correct claim is: safe Rust eliminates certain classes of bugs. I'd wager the design of std eliminates more (e.g. the different string types), but that doesn't really apply to the kernel.

Which is either 1) not true as evidenced by this bug or 2) a tautology whereby Rust eliminates all bugs that it eliminates.

> Anybody who thought the simple action of rewriting things in Rust would eliminate all bugs was hopelessly naive.

Classic Motte and Bailey. Rust is often said "if it compiles it runs". When that is obviously not the case, Rust evangelicals claim nobody actually means that and that Rust just eliminates memory bugs. And when that isn't even true, they try to mischaracterize it as "all bugs" when, no, people are expecting it to eliminate all memory bugs because that's what Rust people claim.

If rust is so inflexible that it requires the use of unsafe to solve problems, that's still rust's fault. You have to consider both safe rust behaviour as well as necessary unsafe code.

> Since this isn't the 1800s anymore there won't be any major revolutions

I'm sure they were saying the same thing in the 1800s

The best part about your account is the people who don't understand the satire and unironically agree with you :D

> Carney is the most popular politician Canada has had in decades

That's just blatantly untrue?

A lot of people are criticizing this for unnecessary complexity, but it's a little more complicated than that. I actually think it makes sense given where they are at right now. The complexity stems from Vercel and Next.js - had they used a different tech, say Cloudflare directly and architected their own systems designed to handle rapidly changing static content none of this would have been necessary. So I guess it depends on your definition of unnecessary complexity. It's definitely unnecessary for the problem space, but probably necessary for their existing stack.

200 years ago that was true, now it's easier than ever to run a business with zero land.

Design is subjective of course. I love their new website and much prefer it to the old one.

Unlike Linux, that wasn't built in as a feature!

You're right. That's why I never took the Covid vaccine and I convinced everyone I know to avoid it as well. You cannot trust big pharma after all the evil things they've done.

This is a gross misunderstanding of what the corporate veil is.

As someone who's owned an f250, I never once had to look up arcane commands to type in a terminal to get it started.