I don't understand why this mentality is so common. Zig and Rust are both fine languages with markedly different design goals and they can coexist.

When creating a dynamic sized array type, it's much simpler to reason about its invariants when you assume only its public methods have access to its size and length fields, rather than trust the user to remember to update those fields themselves.

The above is an analogy which is obviously fixed by using opaque accesor functions, but Rust takes it further by encapsulating raw pointer usage itself.

The whole ethos of unsafe Rust is that you encapsulate usages of things like raw pointers and mutable static variables in smaller, more easily verifiable modules rather than having everyone deal with them directly.

It's honestly frustrating how prevalent this is in C, and the docs don't even tell you this, and if you guess it does take ownership and make a copy for it and you were wrong, now you just leaked memory, or if you guessed the other way now you have the potential to double-free it, use after free, or have it mutated behind your back.

Calling that "not very notable" for an indie title is pretty ignorant.

Previously, retweeting would show something to your followers, and liking tweets would...show them to your followers...

Two ways to do the exact same thing. So it was added cognitive pressure to pick which action to do.

It looks like a fun project, but I'm not sure what this adds to the point where people would actually use it over C or just going to Rust.

Not necessarily. Result types are explicit and require the function signature to be changed for them.

I would much prefer to see a call to foo()?; where it's explicit that it may bubble up from here, instead of a call to foo(); that may or may not throw an exception my way with no way of knowing.

Rust is absolutely not perfect with this though since any downstream function may panic!() without any indication from its function signature that it could do so.

They were added into C before enough of the people designing it knew the consequences they would bring. Another fundamentally broken oversight is array-to-pointer demotion in function signatures instead of having fat pointer types.

Are we seriously going to pretend that men and women—on average—do not differ in their general interests, and furthermore get mad at people for pointing that out?

And I'm not fond of the current administration, but it's a bit extreme to write someone off as a person for liking who is president. You would be writing off literally half of the entire country, and no, that's not something to feel virtuous about, that's just nonsense.

Frankly I think I would rather have a conversation with someone like him instead of someone who would get disproportionately upset at those points.

They have no standards, no oversight, no formal methodology, so naturally it attracts gossip-oriented people who want to stir up drama for fun.

Presenting it through a community called "SubredditDrama" is poisoning the well[1]. I am not going to entertain that smear tactic.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Even your pseudoquote here gives me nothing to work with.

"It" doesn't help? Seriously? What am I supposed to make with this vague out of context snippet?

Am I supposed to take this seriously?