Thought “libs” was an American specific term. My apologies.

I guess you’re part of the American right? You see… the right in the US has been fed a steady stream of Russian propaganda through their talking heads for a while now. So the right has become indistinguishable from Russian bots. Sorry for the confusion!

It reminded me of this quote from Max Planck (emphasis mine):

As I began my university studies I asked my venerable teacher Philipp von Jolly for advice regarding the conditions and prospects of my chosen field of study. He described physics to me as a highly developed, nearly fully matured science, that through the crowning achievement of the discovery of the principle of conservation of energy it will arguably soon take its final stable form. It may yet keep going in one corner or another, scrutinizing or putting in order a jot here and a tittle there, but the system as a whole is secured, and theoretical physics is noticeably approaching its completion to the same degree as geometry did centuries ago. That was the view fifty years ago of a respected physicist at the time.

Basically, there isn’t much left to be discovered in physics, so don’t bother. (Good thing he didn’t follow that advice.) Then, Einstein comes along and is like… you know Newton’s “laws” of motion? I broke 'em. He also broke the aforementioned “law” of conservation of energy.

So, while we actually do understand the physics of the Big Bang until about the first few milliseconds (not much left to be discovered), we don’t know what we don’t know.

Hehe. I think me and you would disagree on a lot of things for sure. But I really like this take. =]

=] I absolutely do. I would very much welcome the evidence of a god and eternal life that is entailed. It sounds wonderful.

While I agree with the general sentiment of your comment, I refuse to believe in anything without empirical evidence of such. These are gaps in our current understanding of our reality. History has shown, there is a logical explanation for just about everything. Nothing… ever… literally… EVER… has pointed toward the existence of such a god…ever.

Tiny gaps are subjective. Sure.

god has been attributed to everything that science had no explanation for at the time. Earthquakes, weather events, cosmological events, etc. Now… the general theory has been relegated to one of the very few things that we don’t understand with near certainty. While I agree it’s not exactly a small gap, but I would argue, in the scale of all of science, microscopic is being generous.

It’s like you filled in those tiny gaps in our knowledge with the possibility of a god. It’s like a god… of… those gaps.

What’s wrong with c unions? I’ve never heard that complaint.

Just watched this. Thank you. I think I’d agree with most of what he says there. I like trying languages, and I did try rust. I didn’t like fighting with the compiler, but once I was done fighting the compiler, I was somehow 98% done with the project. It kind of felt like magic in that way. There are lots of great ideas in there, but I didn’t stick with it. A little too much for me in the end. One of my favorite parts C is how simple it is. Like you would never be able to show me a line of C I couldn’t understand.

That said, I’ve fallen in love a language called Odin. Odin has a unique take on allocators in general. It actually gives you even more control than C while providing language support for the more basic containers like dynamic arrays and maps.

Hahaha. I knew I was wrong about the polymorphism there. You used big words and I’m a grug c programmer =]

We use those generic containers in c as well. Just, that we roll our own.

Move semantics in the general idea of ownership I can see more of a use for.

I would just emphasize that manual memory management really isn’t nearly as scary as it’s made out to be. So, it’s frustrating to see the ridiculous lengths people go to to avoid it at the expense of everything else.

Maybe I’m wrong, but aren’t move semantics mostly to aid with smart pointers and move constructors an optimization to avoid copy constructors? Neither of which exist in c.

I’m not sure what collection type you’re referring to, but most c programmers would probably agree that polymorphism isn’t a good thing.

But it’s a single problem.

Preach brother, I don’t think that’s a hot take at all. I’ve become almost twice as productive since moving from c++ to c. I think I made the change when I was looking into virtual destructors and I was thinking, “at what point am I solving a problem the language is creating?” Another good example of this is move semantics. It’s only a solution to a problem the language invented.

My hot take: The general fear of pointers needs to die.

You may also like Odin if you haven’t already started zig. It’s less of a learning curve and feels more like what c should have always been. It has defer and simple generics, but doesn’t have the magic of comptime.

Your point is that he sounds like an asshole? Because you badgered him for an explanation to a joke you obviously understood and he didn’t give it to you nice enough?

Preemptively deciding you won’t agree doesn’t make him right. He preemptively decided you wouldn’t be happy with his answer … and he was correct.

By the way, I thought it was funny. I sent it to my wife and she thought it was funny and sent it to her mom. (No one asked for an explanation).