Well, it seems you consider a “personal attack” any comment directed to another person, even if it is meaningful for the discussion and in-context. Your own guidelines ask for maintaining an identity (“On HN, users should have an identity that others can relate to.”); yet you don’t want any comments questioning anyone.
As for the rest: I don’t see how asking for proof can be considered “bullying”.
Please review the definition of bullying, because you are trivializing it and therefore hurting actual victims of bullying.
Thank you on behalf of them.
Finally, since it seems HN are in the business of deleting fair comments, I will leave the site and do my best warn others of what is happening here.
It seems you don’t understand (or more likely you don’t want to understand).
In some industries, companies _must_ be conservative by regulation or by contract: it is _not_ a choice. Trying to sell Rust by saying it is used “in satellites” is simply a PR stunt, and one that discredits your other work.
Prove Rust is controlling critical systems _today_ (the kind that requires paperwork to be signed or insurances to be paid). Otherwise, please stop spreading bullshit.
Happy to hear that, since I am not exactly in joy of using ancient languages.
However, from plans to actual usage takes years; specially for completely new projects using new languages, compilers, libraries, etc. in safety-critical stuff, that takes months just to validate.
Stating anything else is just either lying (marketing) or ignorance. Please do not do a disservice to your language by creating vacuous hype.
Sorry but that company/product looks like it is a Linux distro and framework tuned/supported for satellite hardware. That does not mean it controls the satellite nor that it is certified.
If you think “download numbers” (or open source, or being in GitHub) is a good metric for measuring reliability, it means you haven’t really worked in any such field.
It isn’t growing _at all_ in many fields, because it is simply way too new (no new software projects started on it), it isn’t certified (or even impossible to certify). That does not mean it is not better, so don’t take that as an attack. It is simply a suicide in risk-analysis to use a new language, new libraries and new compiler front-end in safety-critical projects; so it is a no-go. Similarly for C11, C++14, C++17 and many other languages, frameworks and libraries that you have to approve.
Putting things on satellites might mean very different things. There is close to zero chance of anything critical being in Rust. One company I worked on has not even move from (a subset of) C90 for critical components. No C99, no C11, no C++03 and no Rust. It is likely that a company may have software in Rust, even running in a satellite module (though unlikely), but that is different than actual satellite systems being certified on Rust.
As for the rest of your argument: in many companies people is still moving to C11 or C++11. For many, software is considered for production only if it has been 5 years in the wild. A library appearing on cargo does not mean it is “available”.
Not a chance. By the time you get there, GPUs would do it (much) faster. Not to mention that GPUs are likely going to get specialized cores for raytracing (see RTX).
Most development software in general: debugging tools like Valgrind, niche compilers, servers, libraries not-so-well-tested on macOS, etc. In general, macOS is currently in a sad state of affairs; when it could have been the best development platform for most use cases. I actually had to switch to a Linux setup for my research because of this. Unbelievable if you’d asked me 5 years ago.
Please, don’t spread misinformation. macOS has not supported latest OpenGL for quite some years. Linux is not supported either, by the way.
On top of that, if I buy a “Pro” machine, I want everything available and as much choices as possible; and I want them on OS X, not on Windows.
As for Metal, it is just Apple leveraging iOS marketshare. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a nice API, but one that nobody asked for.
Finally, speaking of engines, most productivity software does not use them, so your point is moot.
The reality is that the software aspect of the Mac ecosystem is a mess since Jobs died; and also the hardware is a mess for the last couple of years. Even XCode and related tools are nowadays not top-notch compared to Linux-based ones and modern Visual Studio.
As for the rest: I don’t see how asking for proof can be considered “bullying”.
Please review the definition of bullying, because you are trivializing it and therefore hurting actual victims of bullying.
Thank you on behalf of them.
Finally, since it seems HN are in the business of deleting fair comments, I will leave the site and do my best warn others of what is happening here.
Good luck.