"Modern" seems to be used a loose adjective these days for "I rewrote $thing [in Rust]". Minecraft was created in 2011, and is Wikipedia says the last version of the 'classic' edition was released in 2017. So anything after 2017 is now defunct.
I don't mind people rewriting things in <insert-name-of-tech-I-like> but "modern" as a value seems pretty loose, and it's often at least arguable whether it's objectively better!
“Modern” more usually means some new JavaScript thing. In JS land, they consider anything that hasn’t had a commit on main branch in over 3 days to be a dead old project in need of being replaced with something new and “modern” that is up to date with the latest trends and breaking changes from the previous 24 hours of their world.
Usually the hyperbolic superlative for Rust projects is “blazing fast”. Of course, any kind of benchmarks or comparisons with other implementations are completely optional. It is simply enough to “cargo init” and start hammering out code. You don’t even need to consider the characteristics of the algorithms you choose to use! If it’s Rust, it’s “blazing fast”.
Your most starred repo is inferior to a shell one-liner lol. Talk about pot calling the kettle black. Just use the system dict, shuf, grep, and head.
It’s bad form to badmouth someone’s earnest work for sure. I wouldn’t do it normally since I think it’s nice that you actually did something. But if you’re going to sit in a glass house and throw stones you should expect some back.
Fortunately, my house is an underground burrow so I can throw stones with impunity. As ugly as it is to do.
> vulnerabilities decay exponentially. They have a half-life. [...] A large-scale study of vulnerability lifetimes² published in 2022 in Usenix Security confirmed this phenomenon. Researchers found that the vast majority of vulnerabilities reside in new or recently modified code
A study limitation is that they looked only at security-relevant bugs (vulnerabilities). As someone who writes code, I would tend to think that this also goes for bugs without a direct security impact, but I don't have the data to back that notion up
Sorry, I may should not used the term Modern, Lets say the foundation is newer and more optimized than from the Original Minecraft server. Mojang developers have strict deadlines and do not care about performance (like basicly any big Studio today). This results in bad ugly code which only purpose it is to work nothing more. Minecraft was created 2009 btw
I'd argue they care about performance, but they also care about a whole slew of other things that also require prioritization to maintain the game and its cottage industry. Not a huge fan of the constant dogging on mojang everyone loves to engage in...
Its written from the ground up and has a clean foundation (which is not the case in vanilla minecraft server code). We also want to use cool modern features like multi-threading or the rust language which is a modern language designed to fix mistakes from older languages
The limitation isn't the Java version, it's the way the MC code was architected.
Iirc part of original Minecraft's performance limitations were high object create/destroy rate leading to lots of garbage collection. With that in mind, picking a non-GCd language isn't completely crazy.
"Modern" seems to be used a loose adjective these days for "I rewrote $thing [in Rust]". Minecraft was created in 2011, and is Wikipedia says the last version of the 'classic' edition was released in 2017. So anything after 2017 is now defunct.
I don't mind people rewriting things in <insert-name-of-tech-I-like> but "modern" as a value seems pretty loose, and it's often at least arguable whether it's objectively better!
“Modern” more usually means some new JavaScript thing. In JS land, they consider anything that hasn’t had a commit on main branch in over 3 days to be a dead old project in need of being replaced with something new and “modern” that is up to date with the latest trends and breaking changes from the previous 24 hours of their world.
Usually the hyperbolic superlative for Rust projects is “blazing fast”. Of course, any kind of benchmarks or comparisons with other implementations are completely optional. It is simply enough to “cargo init” and start hammering out code. You don’t even need to consider the characteristics of the algorithms you choose to use! If it’s Rust, it’s “blazing fast”.
Where's that meme of the guy painting demons then laying down on the floor in fear when you need it.
Your most starred repo is inferior to a shell one-liner lol. Talk about pot calling the kettle black. Just use the system dict, shuf, grep, and head.
It’s bad form to badmouth someone’s earnest work for sure. I wouldn’t do it normally since I think it’s nice that you actually did something. But if you’re going to sit in a glass house and throw stones you should expect some back.
Fortunately, my house is an underground burrow so I can throw stones with impunity. As ugly as it is to do.
3 replies →
> "modern" as a value seems pretty loose, and it's often at least arguable whether it's objectively better!
Well, there is research on this!
https://security.googleblog.com/2024/09/eliminating-memory-s... writes:
> vulnerabilities decay exponentially. They have a half-life. [...] A large-scale study of vulnerability lifetimes² published in 2022 in Usenix Security confirmed this phenomenon. Researchers found that the vast majority of vulnerabilities reside in new or recently modified code
Where ² goes to https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity22/presentat...
A study limitation is that they looked only at security-relevant bugs (vulnerabilities). As someone who writes code, I would tend to think that this also goes for bugs without a direct security impact, but I don't have the data to back that notion up
Feels kinda obvious to me? As time goes on bug density can only go on direction, and making no changes to a codebase certainly doesn’t make it go up.
Sorry, I may should not used the term Modern, Lets say the foundation is newer and more optimized than from the Original Minecraft server. Mojang developers have strict deadlines and do not care about performance (like basicly any big Studio today). This results in bad ugly code which only purpose it is to work nothing more. Minecraft was created 2009 btw
I'd argue they care about performance, but they also care about a whole slew of other things that also require prioritization to maintain the game and its cottage industry. Not a huge fan of the constant dogging on mojang everyone loves to engage in...
1 reply →
Its written from the ground up and has a clean foundation (which is not the case in vanilla minecraft server code). We also want to use cool modern features like multi-threading or the rust language which is a modern language designed to fix mistakes from older languages
> cool modern features like multi-threading
Java 6 had multi-threading
The limitation isn't the Java version, it's the way the MC code was architected.
Iirc part of original Minecraft's performance limitations were high object create/destroy rate leading to lots of garbage collection. With that in mind, picking a non-GCd language isn't completely crazy.
3 replies →
I think they are being sarcastic because the vanilla Minecraft server is heavily single threaded.
While Java does, the Minecraft server architecture does not.
I read this in the most satirical way possible like as if a godly narrator said it calmly.
It was really funny. It felt like a Satire LMAO
Modern in software terms almost always just means recently written. Last couple years. It's a pretty useless adjective to describe software.
E.g. sqlite probably wouldn't be called modern, but everyone loves it so who cares.