I’ve had days where I’ve felt like doing that.

Just no.

Research shows water now wet.

Or is it the OpenBSD firewall, pf?

Never heard of this language, but you’d be surprised how hard it is to write a correct and portable shell script.

Personally, I’d break out python once the script gets larger than a few lines, or rust if I want something more proper.

I don’t get it

That’s rich!

Not a fan of Ruby, but the things they outline here are pretty good for testing just about any language.

I maintain a fork of llvm and a JIT runtime written in Rust where we’ve employed some of these same techniques. E.g. caching llvm builds, running things in parallel…

Any sufficiently complex, well tested, system has the potential for long CI times. It’s not something unique to Ruby or dynamic languages.

I was thinking the same.

I’m not saying it sucks. I’m saying it can be less straight-forward than conventional languages, even for experienced programmers.

The borrow checker is fantastic, but there’s no doubt that it requires a new way of thinking if you’ve never seen Rust before.

Last election In my constituency the right where complainingthat Labour won because it was a GOOD time for the students to vote.

We have 3 universities.

The population of the city significantly drops during university holidays.

So yes, it can make quite a big difference.

I actually have an sgi octane in my office.

I know :)

It’s a UNIX system. I know this…

That’s not right.

Try and write a mutable doubly linked list in Rust and you will find that it’s problematic for the borrow checker.

Search online and you will find solutions that work around this using ‘RefCell’ (to delegate mutable borrows to runtime), or raw pointers with ‘unsafe’.

It’s hard to get those kinds of data structures through the borrow checker.

Try writing a doubly linked list.

I agree for the most part, but writing data structures with shared mutable state can be a total pain in Rust.

I use C, C++ and Rust in my dayjob.

I don’t like C++, but I disagree with your statement.

C++ has:

• a string type, which sidesteps error prone buffer juggling.
• smart pointers for scope based deallocation.
• generic data types. No more hand rolling list and mapping types with void *.

It’s obviously still not a fully memory safe language, but it has some perks over C. I’d still much rather be using rust (most of the time).

This hits the nail on the head.

Some crates, especially things like data structures, are just “finished” at some point.

Then again, if those kinds of crates have deps, the deps should be updated semi regularly.

Its good to use cargo-audit to find indirect security/safety issues.

I use dictd-client on openbsd. CLI app that talks to dict.org