I don't know; I haven't caught up on the research over the past decade. But it's worth noting that this body of evidence is from before the surge in popularity of strongly typed languages such as Swift, Rust, and TypeScript. In particular, mainstream "statically typed" languages still had null values rather than Option or Maybe.

None of the features discussed are aesthetic only.

Based on the headline, they've probably maladapted to Mac OS, which doesn't actually have a scaling setting.

(This is somewhat baffling to me, since Apple clearly cares a lot about their display hardware and about having good screen resolution.)

That's called a mailing list

/s

neeeeeeerd

If you're thinking of this post, it's by the same author: https://snac.bsd.cafe/modev/p/1727478537.713206

Why don't you answer any of my questions instead of telling me to join your club?

Wat

Yeah, that part is pretty wild and definitely Microsoft's fault.

I should have stressed the "opinion" part of "IMO". What I mean is that, when I read this, it struck me immediately as being exactly correct: https://joeduffyblog.com/2016/02/07/the-error-model/

Re: "the guy has no clue what std::unique_ptr is", are you saying that because of his assertion that unique_ptr has a non-zero cost, whereas Rust's Box does not?

He's actually correct about that, although the difference is fairly minimal, and I believe the difference is outweighed by the unwinding (i.e. panic/exception handling) code that needs to be generated in both cases. But with unwinding disabled, you can see clearly that Rust generates exactly the same code for a Box as for a raw pointer, whereas C++ does not:

• C++: https://godbolt.org/z/qnYb3oqsK
• Rust: https://godbolt.org/z/o7PbG4erj

The reason I looked into this is because of a Chandler Carruth talk primarily about unique_ptr called "There Are No Zero-Cost Abstractions", which explains in detail why C++ fundamentally can't optimize unique_ptr to generate the same code as a raw pointer.

Sorry, are you saying the NSA's information sheet shouldn't have mentioned specific languages? Why not?