> The second is that it's written in the obsolete and unusable language of C++.
Oh come on. There's nicer ways to say "I'm not good at it". It's OK you know, you can't be good at everything. Just don't make it other people's fault.
Oh come on. There's nicer ways to say "I'm not good at it". It's OK you know, you can't be good at everything. Just don't make it other people's fault.
Millions of people have built meaningful software with C++ over the past several decades. It is everywhere and it mostly works OK.
Of course, C++ is not necessarily the best choice for everything or anything. But it is a mostly reasonable choice for lots of things in 2025, just like it was in 1995.
If thousands of HN readers suddenly decide that they need to start their 10+ years learning of C++ with immediate contribution to the Ladybird project it would be not really helpful, right?
In the perhaps more plausible situation that two or three people with a reasonable foundation in CS and/or a bit of professional programming experience decide to learn C++ in order to help Ladybird, I think it would work out quite fine.
But ofc what can I know about browsers, I am just a gamedev. From my PoV (studio tech director) in custom game engines juniors mostly do acts of wanton destruction in the name of curiosity. And then leave for better compensated industries anyway.
In my opinion folks inciting random contributions from webdev crowd unfamiliar with C++ are not helping. And those who are familiar should know better than to do random drive-by features.
By using a very simple technique, I've managed to write 0 bugs in it in the past 15 years.
And I’d disagree with both.