Linus wanted attention and C++ was perfect. Later down the road, he even ranted about Java. It's clear he is a hater of OOP and Abstraction in general. Now, Linus Cultists promotes Data Oriented Design.
The attention thing said by Bjarne by himself when asked on Reddit.
This guy wants to write an implant in Rust, but he forgets that Rust is like C, and its very easy RE.
Oh, I do remember we had cool kidz writing implants in Go, C#
What a failure! That's why the NSA and GRU selected Modern C++!
He selected the wrong tool for the job. Take a look at Flawedgrace, it is written in modern C ++ and very complex to RE. It uses OOP heavily.
Rust is a subset of modern C ++
The Rust people have mastered Alexander Stepanov's vision for C ++
Have a look at Alexander Stepanov's Elements of Programming.
This post just a hidden marketing for his "Blackhat" book.
C++ didn't make any mistakes. The language didn't but the developers did.
It's pity that people portray C++ as dead and horrible lang.
The ecosystem of programming languages has become more like the Ponzi Crypto industry, where every night you get shiny cryptocurrency and then charge for consultations and speaking.
I still don’t understand what you mean, please correct me where I’m wrong.
Branch prediction is a CPU level thing, and mis-predictions has a cost. You can do things like partitioning data beforehand so that a given if condition will take the same branch each time in the partition, but I don’t see how does it apply to templates at all.
You can’t avoid branches that depend on runtime infos, and those branches that depend on compile time known infos can be elided either automatically by the compiler if it can prove it is constant for example, or by things like constexpr, templates as you say. But it’s nothing too fancy, the dumb C-preprocessor macro can do similar things.
JIT-compiled languages can sometimes elide branches based on runtime data, so there is that.
Everyone was afraid that someone was watching them, but they are missing the fact that it's is difficult to watch everyone. Even with algorithms, I don't think it's possible.
Essentially, I believe the three letter agencies are pattern oriented when it comes to tracking.
And that is even a worse problem than in=person surveillance.
The more societal functions are automated, the more ways individuals can be effectively screwed and no one in authority can say anything except "well, you were flagged so you must be guilty".
Until we push back against that as well, and then we run right back into the "They came for..." problem.
En masse, probably not. But there are plenty of public accounts of how camera networks (or a combo of cameras + lpr) can track individual movements.
If you drive from Miami to Montreal, US CBP or Homeland Security has breadcrumbs of your trip the whole way. Camera tracking is possible and is just a matter of funding.
it's is difficult to watch everyone. Even with algorithms, I don't think it's possible.
It's already happening. The Chicago Police Department doesn't have to have 70,000 people watching its 70,000 cameras. It just has several dozen. The computer decides if something looks (or sounds — some have microphones) suspicious, then routes that video feed to a human to look at.
The problem is that we train our computers with "AI" (a word we should stop using) that has biases.
Are you dismissing the potential for this to be abused because (we assume) the technology doesn't support mass biometric identification surveillance today? If so, you should know that technology has shown a propensity for rapid evolution.
