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.
“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.