>>106462177
>is retarded and politically motivated.
i'd disagree with you on that
or rather id add some nuance to it
that type of languages have their place when you consider the whole technological process-
many companies dont have the need for maximum performance, they have the need for correctness
for their usecase, whats rational is to have a childproofed language so they can reduce their costs by hiring less competent people
what is 100% political though, is the attempt to replace C even when that makes no sense
i mean, theres a couple dimensions to that.
not only lgbtrannies want to take over programming, full stop
which is the 100% political part
but also big corpo wants to phase out c because that would slightly level the plane bw giant behemoths like msft and smaller, agile teams- theres no shortage of people frustrated with the rigidity of rust or the complexity of the ecosystem
theres also the fact that cargo was designed to facilitate supply chain attacks. sca's which already happened, too.
i love C. i have ~300klocs of it under my belt.
but i wouldnt try to shove C where it doesnt belong
on x86-64 the usecase for using that language is whenever you're rolling out custom solutions and so other languages features would just be redundant
and one needs to be quite experienced to deal with c bc of the absence of guardrails, and the sometimes esoteric UB's
many ub's become apparent only when someone tries to port code which doesnt make things easier, how often one would do that?
but in cases where it is assumed that the user is experienced, and performance is key
theres nothing better than c
its not without reason that opencl and cuda are basically c, but with heterogenous/gpu specific inbuilts
