rewriting apioforum #289

i am vaguely wondering whether it would be less effort to rewrite apioforum from scratch, possibly in a different language, instead of working on the existing code. realistically i will probably do the latter, but slowly.

perha🅱️s

maybe i will rewrite the basics of it, to better judge how much effort it would be to rewrite the whole thing. and actually a refactor of the existing code would probably make it much nicer to work with, and would be very satisfying to complete.

i wonder if making it use an orm of some kind would be good. i do not know much about orms, maybe someone here does. and if we did do that would it be best to use an existing orm, or to make our own ormish thing.

i assume you dont mean the big hill in llandudno

Well, Minoteaur has been rewritten 8.1 times and that went really well for it.

worm

maybe rewrite it in rust, to follow a tech stereotype

rewrite it in k

rewrite it in k

good* idea

maybe rewrite it in rust, to follow a tech stereotype

bad idea

Rust is a malware language.

false! rust is a moral language, and writing malware results in a compile-time error

rewrite it in qb64

Rust is malware because it forcibly takes power away from the programmer.

Rust is malware because it forcibly takes power away from the programmer.

what on earth does this mean

MMUs are malware

Rust is malware because it forcibly takes power away from the programmer.

what on earth does this me

(Oops, this first paragraph ended up not being correct—thanks, taswelll! It's preserved below for posterity. The second paragraph still stands.)

While i disagree with the FSF on…many things, i think that their definition of malware as "software that actively and intentionally takes power away from its users" is an appropriate one, and one which Rust certainly fits. Rust takes power away from the programmer because it makes it completely impossible to do things that people often very well have a damn good reason for doing, forcing developers to make bloated, slow programs, all done in a crazed pursuit of "safety". This isn't accidental—it's explicitly stated as its goal. It's a bit like governments banning books because "think of the children!!!11!!!" except nowhere near as big of a deal.

In addition, it locks programmers and users into a specific ecosystem, which people get all pissy about when proprietary-software companies do it, yet when Rust does it it's for some reason seen as okay despite being just as much of a hostile tactic. Furthermore, the official community surrounding Rust uses an immoral code of law that allows for infinite punishment to be given to people, allows punishment to be given without a fair trial, and allows punishment for actions committed outside of the jurisdiction of the Rust community. All of these are immoral.

I hope this clears up what i meant.

bee you

what

precisely. i am unable to comprehend posts longer than three

unix is malware because it actively and intentionally stops users without administrator privileges to do things

That's not the same thing. It doesn't force users to comply with its idea of safety; it just makes safety the default. I'm completely fine with that.

so does rust! you can do everything you want to in an unsafe { block, even inline assembly. the safe subset of rust is the default

scratch doesnt allow you to do anything unsafe at all, does that make it malware too?

how about qb64?

or even brainfuck?

Rust takes power away from the programmer because it makes it completely impossible to do things that people often very well have a damn good reason for doing, forcing developers to make bloated, slow programs, all done in a crazed pursuit of "safety"

The developers did actually recognize that this could be an issue, hence "unsafe blocks". You're just not really meant to use them all the time, and it isolates the unsafety to those regions.

This isn't accidental—it's explicitly stated as its goal. It's a bit like governments banning books because "think of the children!!!11!!!" except nowhere near as big of a deal.

I do not think it's particularly valid to compare equate government "safety" to programming language "safety", and not just because of unsafe blocks. It is generally easier to opt out of writing in a particular programming language than it is to opt out of a government doing a thing.

In addition, it locks programmers and users into a specific ecosystem, which people get all pissy about when proprietary-software companies do it, yet when Rust does it it's for some reason seen as okay despite being just as much of a hostile tactic.

There are some Rust libraries which export C-usable interfaces, most notably regex, which I believe is actually being trialled as a replacement for Python's re module.

Furthermore, the official community surrounding Rust uses an immoral code of law that allows for infinite punishment to be given to people, allows punishment to be given without a fair trial, and allows punishment for actions committed outside of the jurisdiction of the Rust community.

I mean, I haven't looked at this, but I think most communities informally work this way anyway.

That's not the same thing. It doesn't force users to comply with its idea of safety; it just makes safety the default. I'm completely fine with that.

so does rust! you can do everything you want to in an unsafe { block, even inline assembly. the safe subset of rust is the default

Oh. Huh. I just checked, and you are correct. Thanks for correcting me; I'll update my original comment.