scoutt

ScamInc might also have a platform to create perfect invoices, perfect email conversations, scanning LinkedIn to find the right people to scam, etc.

Well, you have 1000000 microseconds in between. That's a big threshold.

You are not fighting the C++ compiler or showing why the C++ compiler might be annyoing. You are introducing a bug by poorly using a library (which has nothing to do with writing and compiling C++). Ergonomics I believe are fine?

I'm struggling hard trying to understand what or if your comment has anything to do with GP's comment. Perhaps you wanted to tell that the Rust compiler might have stopped you from producing a buggy program, but again, it has nothing to do with GP's comment.

What I see when producing code with AI (C/C++, Qt) is that often it gives output for different versions of a given library. It's like it can't understand (or doesn't know) that a given function is now obsolete and needs to use another method. Sometimes it can be corrected.

I think there will be a point in which humans will no longer be motivated to produce enough material for the AI to update. Like, why would I write/shot a tutorial or ask/answer a question in a forum if people are now going directly to ask to some AI?

And since AI is being fed with human knowledge at the moment, I think the quantity of good material out there (that was used so far for training) is going to slow down. So the AI will need to wait for some repos to be populated/updated to understand the changes. Or it will have to read the new documentation (if any), or understand the changes from code (if any).

All this if it wasn't the AI to introduce the changes itself.

what should they do?

Sorry to ask, but couldn't it be solved with cargo? I hear all the time about the benefits of Rust tooling and zero-cost abstractions.

Why can't a driver just pull/include the latest-dma-bindings crate and glue the gap with zero-cost abstractions?

If kernel DMA code/API changes, then nothing breaks in the kernel (hopefully) and the "Rust devs will quickly solve the changes" theory can be really proven and tested by quickly updating the bindings AND the updating the drivers.

See? You know how to express an opinion. Which is what I don't see in the blog post.

And doesn't matter if it was written in a blog.

Of course it doesn't. But it sounds like ... the thing I describe in the next paragraph.

"People should be advocating for their own values and morals. To be an ethical person is to understand your values and do the work to apply them in your everyday life."

Pablo Escobar could say that he understand his values (whatever they were; maybe money and power over all other values?) and that he works to apply them every day. He advocated for his own values and morals (ruthlessly). This doesn't make him an Ethical person.

Sorry but I read you answer as if mine was super clever counter-point you can't counter.

I did ctrl+f searching for "opinion", "I believe", "I think", etc. I can't find any reference to "opinions".

I read the post as the author decribing facts and imparting instructions of what we should do ("It's time to do X", "The cargo cult metaphor should be avoided") because they believe their knowledge/opinions/morals/beliefs are better than mine, and somehow they can dictate what to do; how should I feel, what should I think.

Otherwise I am oppressing, contributing to oppress, perpetuating something, [insert other accusations].

As in the past 15 years. It's enough already.

The real question is why the author is doing this? Is it ego? Money? Clicks? Pure and true altruism?

And here "virtue signalling" comes as a possible valid answer too.

Pablo Escobar could have said what you wrote as well.

On the other side, being told what is "bad", what is "good", "right" and wrong", what is "dark" and what is "bright", what I should do and think and why I don't have such good morals, in the past 15 years, was so exhausting...

Oh... yes. You are right. My bad.

Seems archaic today ... run in mere kilobytes of RAM

There is an entire industry that does pretty much that... today. They might run in flash instead of RAM, but still, a few kilobytes.

Probably there are more embedded devices out there than PCs. PIC, AVR, MSP, ARM, custom archs. There might be one of those right now under your hand, in that thing you use to move the cursor.

No one can deny that kernel devs have a valid complain and concerns. Of course Rust and Linux can work together and is feasible, on paper, and everybody wants to see it in the mainline someday.

But in reality working for and with the kernel is more than just writing code. And being realistic, you wouldn't base months worth of work on the hands and the will of some coder that may or may not have your interests in mind that week. Would you?

I thought it was just me, that after 20 years of writing C I still have to look how to declare function pointers.

I have 1 one year old boy and I often think about how should I behave. While the Santa issue is trivial to me, I decided I will lie, or hide the truth for that matter, about some topics to protect his innocence until he's mature enough to understand.

your kids will know that there are things you will lie to them about

And that's part of growing up. I now know that the dog I barely remember (when I was almost 3 years old) didn't "went with his mom that came to pick him up one day", and understanding why they lied is part of growing up. Instead of triggering a loss of trust now I can say "I see what you did there, now I understand".

We need a space that can handle an event our size, and configurable enough to accommodate our content.

I love this sounds like a pun about loading/executing a payload.

This feels like a personal statement

Because it is. And is a statement I agree 100% being a +20-years C developer with a hardwired C parser in my brain: Rust, Zig and some (most?) newer C++ syntax is contorted at minimum (to my eyes).

I wish the only difference were about just new operators, but just the fact that the type has to come after the variable declaration is awful to me (also for returning types in functions declarations). One can tell me 100 reasons why Rust does it this way and they'll probably be all true and right, and you can call me all sort of things but this kind of new syntax puts me off right away.

Maybe my morning coffee didn't kick in yet, but where are the lies? Or why dismiss them as lies and then go on a "I've succeeded (or think I had) and this is what I think" monologue?

The chip might be small. The required board to use it can be big due to placements constraints, required extra components to make it work, space required for routing antenna traces, heat dissipation, etc.

While at those engineering levels you can emulate and foresee all that, sometimes shit simply happens.

I watched the whole thing live. I clearly remember a passenger plane being followed by a couple of fighters. It was filmed by a civilian on the ground. After some time, there was the news about a passenger plane that crashed somewhere.

I couldn't find that footage anymore.

I think the nature of microcontroller programming is already asynchronous. I mean, it's not that the only alternative to "async Rust" is an RTOS; a classic loop program with interrupts is already asynchronous. The only difference is you have to decide how you want to waste time waiting for events, and the same "energy saving" effect can also be achieved with a simple state machine and __WFI(), resulting in cleaner code with no dependencies whatsoever.

Also, it seems to me that Embassy takes over interrupt handlers? If that's the case, what if I want to deal with interrupts in a different way? Or what happens with interrupts that deal with many pins, like EXTI9_5_IRQHandler(), as if I want to use pin 9 with Async Rust, but the rest as a regular interrupt?

And Pin type is a poor name choice for embedded.

Also:

    ExtiInputFuture::new(self.pin.pin.pin.pin(), self.pin.pin.pin.port(), true, false).await

Or you have to transmit a struct as a network packet "as is", between different architectures.

As an engineering manager...

unbiased opinion

If the engineering manager after putting so much effort into switching to Rust, and trying to convince upper levels, putting their head at risk and after busting balls for months to make everyone learn Rust, comes into the office one day and asks if we love Rust, we the 77% that want to keep our jobs would answer "OF COURSE WE DO!!!!! COULDN'T BE HAPPIER!!!", with a big smile.

In C, declaration != heap allocation. And this is a very important detail because implementing something like "deallocation when the scope is exited" adds complexity to the language; more things and more rules you now have to remember.

I don't care about motive

Pablo Escobar gave free money away. Would you take the money? He also built schools.

Motive matters. His intents were to build loyalty masked as charity. MrBeast is building (or has built) something else, masked as charity.

I hope MrBeast never stop giving away money and curing people, but there are some considerations to make here, and not just taking as granted the reasons the very same person doing charity is clearly trying to transmit.

I don't think people are't happy for those who got eye sight back, but the article mentions "altruism" when it may not be and I think that is what is being debated here.

You ask a lot controvertial things that have nothing to do with what I said, and appealing to feelings. Why?

Also, your questions are apparently laid in a way so everything has to fit in order to not accept a commit, or requiring to know exactly how many war crimes have been commited to answer about "the half". Asking many questions like that is a known tactic I don't appreciate.

I'm not talking about numbers, or "which is worst". I'm talking about a guy going to work knowing that his work can kill innocents (yes, even working in/for the US too), and having his patches accepted, as a contractor (or in the supply chain) for some army.

Not everything is good/bad, right/wrong. It's a very ingenuous way to look at the world, and there are a lot of conflicts going on right now (for example https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/). Are you tracking all of them? For the last 10 or 20 years too?

But what about other armies and their suppliers? They don't kill children/innocents too?

I guess the whole point seems to be that people (companies) "does not take similar measures against other countries who wage wars which have caused way more deaths and displacement of individuals".