BatmanAoD

Oh, I thought by "already" you meant right now. I would expect that you can use any Wayland-compatible compositor once their Wayland support is complete, yeah.

Not sure about Steam.

No; Wayland is also a protocol, and Niri relies on that protocol, so Niri doesn't bypass the need for Wayland support.

This is hilarious. I'm not sure how often anyone would actually need to verbalize arbitrary binary data, but I do see an advantage over base64 since the English letter names are so often phonetically similar.

I understand having severe philosophical disagreements with the Rust project, with the majority of Rust users, or with the uutils project specifically. What I don't understand is this part:

If you go to the website of the Rust programming language nowadays, one of the first things you'll notice is that their primary communication platform is Discord. Yes, you read it right - their primary communication platform is Discord, a proprietary spyware program that is owned by a Chinese investment company and has backdoors to various other national intelligence agencies too.

Rust did have an official Discord, years ago, before switching to Zulip (alongside other official communal hubs, most prominently the Discourse forums that the author complains about next). But this was written in March and specifically says "nowadays", and I cannot find any mention of Discord on the Rust website.

If you drive a car, have you read the entire owner's manual for every car you've owned? If you're a homeowner, how about your hvac system? What about your system shell? Your compiler(s)?

At some point you need your tools to be intuitive enough that you don't need to read an entire manual in order to do your work.

Oh, you just mean he believes that's the future, not that he agrees with it or thinks it's a good thing.

Do you mean the "this is where we're headed" comment? That's not agreeing with the direction.

... until you have an off day, or you get bored of coding, run off to join the circus as a professional knife-juggler and your codebase is inherited by someone of more conventional aptitude.

Sometimes you even have to deal with having mere mortals on your team!

Same

You didn't say "programmers should be aware that rust doesn’t automatically mean safe". You said:

People just think that applying arbitrary rules somehow makes software magically more secure...

You then went on to mention unsafe, conflating "security" and "safety"; Rust's guarantees are around safety, not security, so it sounds like you really mean "more safe" here. But Rust does make software more safe than C++: it prohibits memory safety issues that are permitted by C++.

You then acknowledged:

I understand that rust forces things to be more secure

...which seems to be the opposite of your original statement that Rust doesn't make software "more secure". But in the same comment:

It’s not not like there’s some guarantee that rust is automatically safe...

...well, no, there IS a guarantee that Rust is "automatically" (memory) safe, and to violate that safety, your program must either explicitly opt out of that "automatic" guarantee (using unsafe) or exploit (intentionally or not) a compiler bug.

...and C++ is automatically unsafe.

This is also true! "Safety" is a property of proofs: it means that a specific undesirable thing cannot happen. The C++ compiler doesn't provide safety properties[1]. The opposite of "safety" is "liveness", meaning that some desirable thing does happen, and C++ does arguably provide certain liveness properties, in particular RAII, which guarantees that destructors will be called when leaving a call-stack frame.

[1] This is probably over-broad, but I can't think of any safety properties C++ the language does provide. You can enforce your own safety properties in library code, and the standard library provides some; for instance, mutexes have safety guarantees.

I guess what you mean is that Rust doesn't advertise the compiler as being bug-free?

The massive difference here is that C++ has no soundness guarantees even when the compiler is working as intended, whereas Rust actually does in fact give soundness guarantees in the absence of compiler bugs.

Rust doesn’t have a formal specification other than “whatever the fuck our team hallucinated in this compiler version”

That's simply not true. The Reference, while not an ISO-style formal spec, does actually specify most of the intended language behavior, and incrementally approaches completion over time. But even if you insist on an ISO-style formal spec, there's Ferrocene: https://ferrous-systems.com/blog/the-ferrocene-language-specification-is-here/

it fucks your day because you’re not careful

The cve-rs vulnerability is actually not really something you'd ever write by accident. Also note that the bug report has multiple versions because, even though a "full" solution is pending some deeper compiler changes, the first ~~two~~ three versions of the exploit are now caught by the compiler. So, like I said, the compiler bugs do get fixed over time.