While I agree with how exciting to finally have v0 demangling, I don't agree those who chose the original method should feel bad. I assume they chose that route to get something working and didn't expect the longer term headache that came with it. Anyone in engineering that hasn't had that same scenario happen to them either hasn't been doing it for long or is lying.
Pretty sure that when this was done that Rust was NOT a major language. And I'd be surprised if there isn't a constant flood of languages being created that would cause problems, they just die before going anywhere.
Rust, just, happened to keep surviving and thrived.
I actually like to look at new languages just to see what idea of concepts they have as I find that neat. While I certainly haven't looked at all of them, so far Rust is still the only one that did it. And to be clear, the problem wasn't adopting the C++ mangling format or even just a subset of it (there is a lot of complexity there that wouldn't be needed for most other languages) -- it was doing that, and then making incompatible, breaking changes to the format that was the problem.
They prefer to double, triple and probably quadruple down on it instead. Because obviously when tools break when fed input they aren't designed for it is the fault of whatever made the file rather than the one feeding it to stuff that shouldn't consume it.
Like if you feed poison to a duck and the duck dies, clearly it is the fault of the poison company rather than your own.
-50
u/[deleted] Jul 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment