Yes, I second this. QA has caught so many things that did not cross my mind, effectively saving everyone from many painful releases

I like your optimism (really mean this)

And good luck to them (sarcasm)

So, not the programmers do this, lol?

A-ha, better languages my ass. They may make some specific job easier, but calling them good just because of that - nuh-uh. I would (and actually will) rather spend time learning to properly use C or C++

I dare assume you get downvoted for liking Rust, so take my upvote for balance. We differ about what we think of the language, but this kind of angry downvoting is plain ridiculous

I fear no man, but you… you scare me :3

First you will need to exit vim

I’ve got better news:

• notice 200 error:true story on our side
• fix it
• fix it better: add detailed description, add message on what needs to be done on client side

Client to mutual users: meh, we see an error, not our problem. Me: screams in swear language

It depends. We may have our differences in weighing things, but yes, complexity of the system must correlate with complexity of the task it is used for. A system allowing to do things without any complexity means either no complex things to be done or straight up magic

Looks like we still differ. If something is more complicated than what I may think, then there are some possibilities:

• I have not learned to language properly yet (this is where I stand with C++, so no matter how many times I’ve got segfaults, now is not the time for me to say language is bad)
• I have chosen the wrong tool (writing a videoplayer in assembler? something went way wrong here)
• tool is actually bad (my rant above goes here. in the sake of making some things easy and simple, something basic in the language got screwed up irrevocably)

And if I managed to try reading from a closed handle, or to access a memory that I am not actually allowed to use, or… (could not get more examples out of the top of my head), it is not the job of the language to slap my hands, as long as I follow the syntax. Most of the time (if not all the time) this means I have not accounted for something that my code allowed to happen - so my responsibility to deal with that

What I keep hearing about Rust is still in the lines of too-much-fucking-care (that’s besides obviously dumb rule of “no more than one owner of a variable at any moment” which then had to be worked around because not everything can be done this way. please correct me if I am wrong here)

I tend to disagree. The language should allow me to do things, and what is simple and obvious logically should be simple and obvious in the language (I am looking at you, JavaScript with [] != [])

What I intend - well, more than half my work is figuring out what I intend, language should have no say in this, save things like “we do this kind of trick like this here” (for example, C++ has no concept of “interface” entity. Ok, looks like I can use virtual class instead)

It is when languages start trying to be “helpful” they become an ugly mess: meaningful white spaces in Python? The whole shit with prototypes and objects in JS(see above)? Fuck this shit, I am not going to call those two good programming languages