I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm saying that I don't encounter them in the wild. Certainly nowhere near as often as I encounter people who have a loud and obnoxious dislike of Rust.
What I'm trying to say is that if you see Rust evangelists everywhere, your label is either so wide-ranging as to be useless or you need to rm your rust_evangelist_evidence.txt because it's likely taking up a disproportionate amount of headspace.
The only time I've ever seen anything that could be considered Rust evangelist is when someone with a chip on their shoulder shoves a github issue or random comment link in my face. I certainly don't encounter them in the wild.
> Because they are all the consequence of holding it wrong, avoiding RAII solutions.
The reason why C++ is as popular as it is is in large part due to how easy it is to upgrade an existing C codebase in-place. Doing a complete RAII rewrite is at best a long term objective, if not often completely out of the question.
Acknowledging this reality means giving affordances like `defer` that allow upgrading C codebases and C++ code written in a C style easier without having to rewrite the universe. Because if you're asking me to rewrite code in a C++ style all in one go, I might not pick C++.
EDIT: It also occurs to me that destructors also have limitations. They can't throw, which means that if you encounter an issue in a dtor you often have to ignore it and hope it wasn't important.
I ran into this particular annoyance when I was writing my own stream abstractions - I had to hope that closing the stream in the dtor didn't run into trouble.
Though I do wonder what the chances are that the C subset of C++ will ever add this feature. I use my own homespun "scope exit" which runs a lambda in a destructor quite a bit, but every time I use it I wish I could just "defer" instead.
I'll admit that this use case didn't really occur to me, because the signal to noise ratio is so damn bad in matchmade games these days. If I want to play a game on voice call with strangers, I go to the community space first and then organize a team there.
That being said, after thinking about it, I actually have done what you're talking about before - just not on Discord. When I find someone, I simply add them on Steam, PSN, or whichever account the game uses.
I'm already using Matrix for a number of open source communities. It's fine as far as it goes.
However, from a community space point of view, it seems to be more similar to IRC than Discord. Much like an IRC server, there's a public list of channels and you join them individually. There is voice and video chat, but as far as I can tell it's only person to person without any voice and video conferencing like Discord has, and I've never actually tried them to see how well they work.
Some organizations, such as Mozilla, run their own Matrix server in order to corral the community into one place, but more often than not I see communities creating a single channel on the primary matrix.org server, and "expand" by adding more channels, IRC style.
As an IRC replacement, I think it's perfect. But if you are expecting something more similar to Discord in terms of functionality, you'll likely be looking elsewhere. Stoat is what I see most frequently touted, but I can't speak to it personally.
The friends list is inconsequential. It's for sending private messages to people you already know and met from a Discord server. Long running group chats are an aberration, people just start up micro-discords instead.
And that is what Discord alternatives will have to solve - the ease of setting up a new Discord "server" by any old random user is hard to beat in terms of convenience. Matrix is the only real alternative on that front.
However, if you have an established community and have at least a little hosting knowledge among the staff, the moat is shallow to nonexistent, and it's just a matter of how much of a pain in the neck Discord decides to be.
> Discord does have some user capture, but nothing like twitter's
More importantly, Discord's communities are silo'ed, private by default, and administered and moderated by human beings with almost no oversight from Discord proper.
There is no equivalent on Twitter. On Reddit, going dark makes you subject to administrative subreddit takeover. But if someone runs a Discord community that they want to migrate to another platform, they could easily lock the entire server to posting and post a link to the alternative community. Done.
You can still find the essence of community on the traditional internet in places like invite-only discords, smaller mastodon instances, traditional forums, and spaces similar to Lobsters and Tildes.
...and not on Hacker News. Too many pseudo-anonymous jerks, too many throwaways, too much faith placed in gamified moderation tools.
> But where are the AI features?? Gonna get left behind!
Obviously vim doesn't need AI, but one feature I really wish vim had was native support for multiple cursors.
It's the feature that lured me away to Sublime Text in the first place many years ago, and it's a pre-requisite for pretty much every editor I use these days, from VSCode to Zed.
There are plugins, but multicursor is such a powerful force-multiplier that I think a native implementation would benefit.
> Game studios, and everyone that works in the games industry providing tooling for AAA studios.
You know what else is common in the games industry? C# and NDA's.
C# means that game development is no longer a C/C++ monoculture, and if someone can make their engine or middleware usable with C# through an API shim, Native AOT, or some other integration, there are similar paths forward for using Rust, Zig, or whatever else.
NDA's means that making source available isn't as much of a concern. Quite a bit of the modern game development stack is actually source-available, especially when you're talking about game engines.
C? Never. I feel like that ship has sailed, it's too primordial and tied to too many system ABI's to ever truly go away. I think we'll see a lot of Rust or Zig replacing certain popular C programs and libraries, but I don't think C will ever go away.
C++ on the other hand? Possibly, though I think that it's just as much because of the own-goals of the C++ standards committee as it is the successes of Rust. I don't really consider Zig a competitor in this space because if you're reaching for C++, you are reaching for a level of abstraction that Zig is unwilling to provide.
> Compiler vendors are free to chose what ABI stability their C++ implementations provide.
In theory. In practice the standards committee, consisting of compiler vendors and some of their users, shape the standard, and thus the standard just so happens to conspire to avoid ABI breakages.
This is in part why Google bowed out of C++ standardization years ago.
I remember when learning Zig, the documentation for the language itself was extensive, complete, and easily greppable due to being all on one page.
The standard library was a lot less intuitive, but I suspect that has more to do with the amount of churn it's still going through.
The build system also needs more extensive documentation in the same way that the stdlib does, but it has a guide that got me reasonably far with what came out of the box.
I don't think you can claim a middle ground here, because I still largely agree with the sentiment:
> The correct response when someone oversteps your stated boundaries is not debate. It is telling them to stop. There is no one to convince about the legitimacy of your boundaries. They just are.
Sometimes, an appropriate response or argument isn't some sort of addressing of whatever nonsense the AI spat out, but simply pointing out the unprofessionalism and absurdity of using AI to try and cancel a maintainer for rejecting their AI pull request.
"Fuck off, clanker" is not enough by itself merely because it's too terse, too ambiguous.
> To me, these are all clear cases of "the correct response is not one that tries to persuade but that dismisses/ isolates".
I believe it is possible to make an argument that is dismissive of them, but is persuasive to the crowd.
"Fuck off clanker" doesn't really accomplish the latter, but if I were in the maintainer's shoes, my response would be closer to that than trying to reason with the bad faith AI user.
The point that we disagree on is what the shape of an appropriate and persuasive response would be. I suspect we might also disagree on who the target of persuasion should be.
> For all of the reasons I've brought up already. If your goal is to convince someone of a position then the effort you put in isn't tightly coupled to the effort that your interlocutor put sin.
If someone is demonstrating bad faith, the goal is no longer to convince them of anything, but to convince onlookers. You don't necessarily need to put in a ton of effort to do so, and sometimes - such as in this case - the crowd is already on your side.
Winning the attention economy against a internet troll is a strategy almost as old as the existence of internet trolls themselves.