"Attacks".
The Caeser cipher used to be a valid cryptography method, and then it was not.
What does this imply? That the creator of C++ thought that their language would be the end all be all?
Tough news for them I guess, but no, it is not. On a long enough timeline, neither is Rust probably, but such is the price of innovation.
To call superior innovations an "attack" is one of the most folly things one can do.
Before someone asks what makes Rust superior, the very fact that the C++ creator is using the term "attack" here should very well be evidence enough, because it is an ad hominem fallacy. Instead of criticizing Rust, because they cannot find a valid way to, they choose instead to attack the character of Rust users.
On a long enough timeline, neither is Rust probably, but such is the price of innovation.
It is always so weird to me that people literally seem to believe that complex inventions like programming languages are something we got to perfection within 20 (in C's case) or 30 (in C++'s case) years of the advent of our industry. Especially considering an iteration cycle is somewhere in the decade or longer range for these. I would expect this to improve for at least a couple of hundred years before we reach the point where nothing new can be added to existing programming languages that is worth starting over with a new language to reap the benefits.
Stroustrup has always been a troll, and now that he is finally in the "find out" stage he seems unable to do anything else than whining.
btw, his "profiles" proposal is a sad bad joke. He clearly does not understand why C++ sucks at security, and therefore he is unable to introduce useful changes in that direction.
We went from spam "news sites" to spam videos. Maybe an "original source" policy should be applied by moderators!
This applies to both hare and on !rust@programming.dev
