2024-03-26 13:10:42	dave9001	Anyway, now that Emil is here, I can post what I've been meaning to.
2024-03-26 13:12:40	dave9001	No computer program can be completely safe, we've gone over this before. Ultimately, there will always be unsafe code that you interface with, at some level. It's extremely sophistic, however, if not simply idiotic, to argue that since every language is unsafe on same level, every language is equally unsafe. Rust's ownership semantics provide compile-time safety guarantees that no other language does. 
2024-03-26 13:12:46	dave9001	It is the only language of its kind to both be low-level, and entirely safe.
2024-03-26 13:12:49	dave9001	That also is not to say that Rust's ownership model is free of abstraction leaks. Despite it having no runtime cost, it still is an abstraction. This repository implements, in safe Rust, segfaults and use-after-frees -> https://github.com/Speykious/cve-rs
2024-03-26 13:12:53	dave9001	The way this is done is through a particular soundness hole in the implementation, allowing for lifetime expansion. Also, give the LICENSE file a read, it got a chuckle out of me. Good luck with that shit.
2024-03-26 13:12:57	dave9001	...
2024-03-26 13:12:59	dave9001	But that doesn't matter, does it? You probably already realize that your argument is flawed, and your own behavior (your usage of Ada) contradicts it.
2024-03-26 13:13:02	dave9001	Programming languages are simply tools to be used, they're a means to the goal of programming. One could hardly condemn a mechanic for using a screw driver to screw a screw into a threaded hole. But, indeed, the two active members of this group chat, with the notable exception of anon8697, who I believe is a computer science student, have engaged in such intellectual dishonesty.
2024-03-26 13:13:08	dave9001	You have both adopted the stance, not simply that you do not like Rust, but that it's a *bad* language. You have firmly resolved to keep this belief, and have committed severe fallacies into your thinking to justify it. You are presented with a tool that solves some of the most pressing issues of some your existing tools, and you've decided that this new tool is bad, perhaps for reasons of 
2024-03-26 13:13:14	dave9001	contrarianism. You've ardently defended that inherently flawed position, with inherently flawed arguments. It's a difficult tree to climb down from, isn't it? xolatile's most recent argument was what I addressed above, "since it can't be entirely safe, there's no point making any of it safe." Emil's position is that the low-level programmers who would use Rust don't deserve safety (??????).
2024-03-26 13:13:20	dave9001	And it's not the fact that you have been hostile towards Rust in particular that is problematic to me. It is, more generally, the extreme hostility towards and lack of receptiveness to a new and interesting idea. Perhaps it is the mark of an amateur, though I won't apply it to hobbyists more generally. Being in this group chat has, for the last few days, been anything but fun. Adding Rust, as a tool, to 
2024-03-26 13:13:26	dave9001	my belt, has made me a dissenter, and discussing it has made me a shill. I am not so dense as to not be able to sense your hostility towards me. In fact, xolatile has explicitly spelled it out, that if he were an operator, he would simply ban me. And the implications of emilemilemil OPing anon8697 yesterday are clear to me.
2024-03-26 13:13:31	dave9001	Frankly, when I retroactively consider it, it feels pitiful. You've chosen to identify with your tools, rather than your work, and you cannot stand to have those tools criticized. Interestingly, I have personally presented many of what I see as flaws of the Rust language and its tooling here. It's telling, then, that those are not the points you focus on.
2024-03-26 13:13:36	dave9001	What I was seeking when I joined this channel was a space for interesting back-and-forth, and casual discussion about the trade. What I'm finding instead is a childish resistance to new ideas. As I am no longer wanted here, and I no longer want to be here, I will have to say farewell.
2024-03-26 13:13:52	anon8697	-- tl;dr
2024-03-26 13:15:49	xolatile	tldr
2024-03-26 13:16:07	<--	dave9001 (~dave9001@dave.9001) has quit (Quit: leaving)
// and he was never seen again
