shy_mia

As long as two binaries are compiled with the same version of the Rust compiler, they are ABI compatible. Even if the compiler version differs, I've found that changes to the ABI are fairly uncommon. Furthermore, anything exposed through the C ABI is stable, so the problem can be circumvented if needed. It's not the most ergonomic solution, admittedly, but with some compromises dynamic linking is perfectly feasible.

Of course not that's just BS, they just happen to be popular in the same circles. Correlation isn't causation and all that.

I'm talking about the possible burns from skin contact, dangerously low blood pressure when mixed with almost anything else, and the few reports of eye damage found in users of the isopropyl nitrate variant.
(Just going from what I've read, might very well be fear mongering for all I know, never used them)

Now I'm not saying they should be banned or anything, they can be a great tool if used correctly from what I've heard, but proper studies and regulations would go a long way towards making them safer. Not that it's gonna happen with the current administration, but that's my two cents on the matter for what it's worth.

No that's the issue: it's too permissive. It allows corporations or individuals to redistribute and modify the code as closed source, which isn't desirable for this kind of project.

Yeah the licensing is a bit worrying, but it's not a language issue.

No, it started as a Mozilla project; it's been independent for a long time now.
If anything I expect Mozilla to be among the smaller contributors nowadays from a purely monetary standpoint.

Waiting for the Rust haters to get unjustifiedly mad again...

Vegemite artillery when?

Aren't there genuine health concerns with those, shitty propaganda aside?

Does that headline not sound absurd to you?

...that's the joke...

All of which are completely irrelevant as to why games run like crap. Those things have zero impact on the game's framerate, they only affect asset loading and streaming, and even then they do pretty much nothing from what I can see.

I'm not gonna say it's just marketing, but it comes close imo. I personally benchmarked Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart's loading times between a PS5, an NVMe SSD and a SATA SSD. Literally no difference, save for the SATA one being a fraction of a second slower. And that was one of the games thar was supposed to showcase what that technology can do! (I know it doesn't run on UE5, but it's just an example)

UE5 runs like garbage on all platforms. You can load assets as fast as you want, but if the rendering pipeline is slow as hell it doesn't matter, games will still run like garbage regardless.

Which? Because consoles just use AMD APUs which have the exact same hardware features as their current CPUs and GPUs. UE5 games run like crap on consoles too.