Rust ahd python

nothing else is ever needed

Attached: 800px-Rust_programming_language_black_logo.svg.png (800x800, 34K)

>program in rust
>forget to renew certificate
whoopsie daisy my extensions don't workie anymory :-P

Attached: 1557031271762.gif (540x304, 1.78M)

rust will outlive Firefox
and Mozilla isn't the first corp that forgot to renew certificates

rust is DOA

Rust ain't dead. It's an abomination that has memory safety as an excuse for its damned existence.

Attached: team rustlets.jpg (261x193, 8K)

how do i make website in those?

compiling rust to webassembly files and using python to administer their delivery

Bloated. C forever.

i think mozilla will be going through some changes in 2020, possibly ditching gecko to focus on consumer advocacy

do i need to recompile for every little change?

It exists because the C language working group couldn't bolt memory safety extensions on top of the C standard. It exists because C is a technological dead end.

yes, but the compiler recycles pretty much everything but the changed part

That's a really good way for them to be laying off all their employees by 2021

it's a pretty damn good reason for existing. a large sector of bugs comes from shared mutability. you can be shared but not mutable or you can be mutable but not shared. functional languages solve this by being immutable. rust solves this with lifetimes and ownership/borrow rules.

>It exists because C is a technological dead end.
You mean brainlet trannies like you can't into it.

Attached: tranny.jpg (640x621, 74K)

i dont know man sounds like too much hassle, javascript and php are just "there", you only need to refresh the browser
dont get me wrong, i hate javascript

>javascript and php are just "there", you only need to refresh the browser
these days that's not really the case. you need a compiler and then a tree shaker.

The C standard is not aimed at adding features, that's what Sepples is for. There are plenty of languages that insure memory safety, but the technique of choice is garbage collection, not compile-time guarantee. Because it's simpler that way. Because memory safety doesn't need to be embedded in the language, C has very potent static analysis software that can detect most of the common memory access errors. One tool for the right job.

>Because memory safety doesn't need to be embedded in the language
neither do loops but we have them because we aren't cavemen who hack using 100% assembly

absolute retard.

>you need a compiler and then a tree shaker
please expand on that
i dont quite understand , i mean how do you need compiler for those things?

lots of libraries are based around react/jsx or async await these days. I mean, node still doesn't have es6 import syntax (which is shit btw, seriously thought method declaration would be a good idea to put before the module? absolute retards)

oh i see now, its just that i never used node/react
im more oriented toward backend, i hope i can get away with it

Loops make things simpler to write, not harder as enforcing memory safety in the language does. Also, do I need to repeat that memory safety can be checked against with static analysis tools? It does not prevent languages that insure memory safety from existing, but I strongly advise against going this way, for the aforementioned reasons. Do whatever you want with that advice, but be damned if you go down that road.

>Loops make things simpler to write
so does rust, you don't need to think about RAII and safety
>Also, do I need to repeat that memory safety can be checked against with static analysis tools?
you can do it in your head too. why do you need a static analysis tool? no one *needs* that tooling