Re: VMS

On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 20:23:21 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
wrote:

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote at 06:09 this Wednesday (GMT):

On 6/18/25 1:30 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote at 03:03 this Sunday (GMT):

On 6/14/25 7:27 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 20:30:34 +0200, Andreas Eder wrote:
>

You meaybe thinking of Redox OS https://www.redox-os.org/

>
That name is obviously meant to be a kind of word play on “Rust”.
As I recall from my high-school chemistry lessons, a “redox
reaction” is one where one reactant is “reduced” (gains electrons)
while the other is “oxidized” (loses them). This may or may not
involve actual oxygen atoms (which are notorious eaters of
electrons), but the concept has been generalized from that.
>
The slight irony is that the name “Rust” does not come from the
well-known redox reaction that iron undergoes with water in the
presence of oxygen (catalyzed by a little bit of polar contaminants
such as common salt), but from the name of a kind of fungus.

>
    "Fungus" ??? TOO CRUEL !
>
    Rust is perfectly OK ... but I don't see much advantage over
    plain 'C'. Lots of 'new langs' are like that, just 'C' with
    nastier syntax.

 
 
Rust I personally dislike the syntax of, AND its development team is
apparently pretty controversial.

>
>
   IMHO, stick to 'C' ... but use GOOD PRACTICES.

 
Makes sense to me.

 
Yes, assuming a perfectly infallable programmer, C can be "memory safe"
as well.

I don't know rust at all but I wonder if it's like Stroustrup's comment on
C++ -- it's harder to shoot yourself in the foot but when you do you blow
your whole leg off.