> There is no such thing as "constructive criticism" of suspected fraud
You can criticize anyone constructively. What they are today is not what they are in the future. People can change even Andrew, but if something is repeated over and over, it is a sign of their personality.
I see his act as harassment. I know that Vlang had red flags, but I feel Russophobia or Jealousy in his actions. I looked through everything, but the guy didn't let the man talk and explain himself. So, the other side of the story is hushed up. It's like asking someone to prove their worth, otherwise they'll be killed. Naive Bayes can uncover many cases of fraud, but bias can turn things upside down.
Simple, small languages getting complicated when used in large applications while complex languages become simple and easier when used in large applications.
Whenever you port a big program to another language it is important to be conservative, in my view. You don't want to make so many structural changes in the way things work in the original codebase while porting things over. You risk things becoming very confusing and the port could fail. In future iterations you could definitely make things more idiomatic in the target language.
As far as Rust is concerned, it does not have traditional OO features. But by using the Deref/DerefMut trait specifically and traits in general I was able to recover and mimic a lot of OO behaviors present in rr in rd.
The rd code may not always be beautiful.
FYI,
Rust had a GC also Classes in it's initial versions but they were removed for some reason!!!
What's with the people who still use the term C/C++?
C++ and C are separate languages. I'd be grateful for the author to reflect it in the Readme.
Further, Bragging about LoC is bad. LoC is a poor measure of both quality and functionality.
"C/C++ - a mythical language referred to by people who cannot or do not want to recognize the magnitude of differences between the facilities offered by C and C++" -- Stroustrup