I feel like this is due to my C-suite pushing for AI integrations in basically everything
I would put a small amount of money on it actually being because this guy was involved in setting up that workflow and sees your suggestion to fix it as criticism that it is shit (and by implication so is he).
Very common defence mechanism.
Yeah I think the reputation was probably deserved early in Rust's life, but as time has gone on it has gotten a lot easier to write, especially with the non-lexical lifetimes update 3 years ago.
They're released on a schedule so they are often quite boring.
Yeah there are pros and cons. Desktop apps are not sandboxed. Mobile apps are often missing features and are annoying to install. Websites often have poor performance or janky UX on mobile, and you need to be online, and you don't have control of their availability.
I think the best option depends on what the thing is - ordering food from a random pub? Web site. Video editing? App.
I've always heard Teams is crap but I've never used it. My company is switching to it though. What crap things do I have to look forward to?
I don't think there were any standards for this sort of thing when Flatpak and Snaps first came out, and they arrived at the same time and have pretty big differences. So this doesn't apply.
pointing and saying “this is shit. Look at this shit”
Yeah you only get to do that if you're Linus 😄
Very good points. A codebase that gets this VERY wrong is Gitlab. I think it might be a dumb characteristic of Ruby programs, but they generate identifiers all over the place. I once had to literally give up following some code because I could not find what it was calling anywhere. Insanity.
Another point: don't use - in names. Eventually you'll have to write them down in a programming language, at which point you have to change the name. CSS made this mistake. foo-bar in CSS maps to fooBar in Javascript. Rust also made this mistake with crate names. A crate called foo-bar magically becomes foo_bar in Rust code.
Its definitely best to try and avoid raw pointers, but even if you try really hard I found it's not really possible to get a Rust-like experience with no UB.
Even something as simple as std::optional - you can easily forget to check it has a value and then boom, UB.
The C++ committee still have the attitude that programmers are capable of avoiding UB if they simply document it, and therefore they can omit all sanity checks. std::optional could easily have thrown an exception rather than UB but they think programmers are perfect and will never make that mistake. There are similar wild decisions with more recent features like coroutines.
They somehow haven't even learnt the very old lesson "safe by default".
If I wanted memory unsafety I think I would consider Zig instead of C++ at this point.
Go to bed, you're drunk.
Saving this for when people try to claim that naming things isn't important!
Also that is clearly a security issue. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is forgetting that humans exist. Though I suspect they were just trying to avoid admitting fault and doing work. Disappointing either way.
Vibe port the Zig compiler to Rust? 😄