Readit NewsDeleted Comment
My guess was that since almost no one will pay more for a game's having fewer security vulns, there is less benefit to incurring the expense of Rust (takes longer to learn, development speed is slightly less)
For example I like to play Civ with a friend, but stopped because about once every 30 minutes one of us would have their game crash. If it was written in Rust, I assume it might be more stable.
I don’t know what fancy things you’re doing with unsafe that you’re seeing it on a daily basis… maybe it’s a you problem
What exactly is considered a success here? That it lives on for at least a decade? More than N active users per month?
I think the reason they graveyard so many products is because their line of "successful" is much higher than what a scrappy startup would consider success. So even products with thousands of active users would be put to their death bed instead of iterated upon.
But here a 50% increase creates a realistic expectation to me.
Somehow I feel the same about all the privacy discussions. Are people really understanding and would be impacted in the same why by privacy issues or is this just a fight between various interests with no connection with the actual people?
To give an (extreme) example: without social networks elections will be influenced by newspapers and television. Would "the actual person" be much better of because he is influenced "by different people"?
Sometimes I wonder how it would be if some things would be less private. (for example if wealth information would be less private, would it be harder for some people to do "dubious stuff", from straight illegal, to huge bonuses, etc.). I mean look at open source - is open source a result of "let's keep everything private and separate" idea or exactly the opposite... ?