@frogzone @NonPlayableClown @mischievoustomato @Hyperhidrosis @cvnt

> if you are saying that the c++ language has gotten worse over time, hard to compile etc, I have to disagree, I'm not running a super computer, I have a dinky setup and was able to compile and i2pd application on that.

"I successfully invoked the compiler" does not mean the language does not suck and the ecosystem does not suck and the compiler does not suck and further, it does not imply anything about whether it sucked slightly less 25 years ago. (It sucked significantly less 25 years ago, and 25 years ago it already sucked too much.) I do not like C++ and this thread having turned into a long series of arguments, I will say this: I do not like C++, I have not ever liked C++, and, like the wily squid, using its ink defense, I will start spamming pornography at anyone that wants to argue this point with me. It is a matter of taste: I have good taste, and everyone else has shit taste, this is objectively true and it's a waste of time to try to alter my timeless, unforgivable knowledge, because all it will get you is spam.

That is not to say that "i2pd" sucks, just that it's written in a language that sucks. I also do not have a use for i2p at present. Telling me that i2pd exists and can be compiled is telling me something that (this is the third time I'm saying it) I already know. I have already put this into the thread:

$ ls -lh src/i2pd/build/i2pd
-rwxr-xr-x 1 pete users 4.0M Sep 29 2022 src/i2pd/build/i2pd

The timestamp says "2022", because I compiled that program in 2022.

> The list of libraries that i2p uses, last I checked was not huge,

Until I have a use for i2p, I don't care.

> I would encourage returning to the crux of the specific issue.

The crux of the issue is I have no use for i2pd. That is what I wrote. I said I don't see a reason to care aobut i2pd. I tossed in that I question the judgment of the devs because they chose Java; I wrote that not because I want to argue Java, but because I do not respect Java. I have terabytes of pornography to spam at anyone that wants to explain to me that my objectively correct conclusions are wrong and that I should like Java. I have never been wrong in my life. Your failure to listen and understand my genius is your own failure, not mine.

> there is a rust version of i2p

Rust is worse than C++.

> i find tor devs do is the bare minimum

I do not care about exit nodes, I'm skipping this paragraph.

> making the user experience a bit crap,

I do not care about user experience so I'm skipping this paragraph.

> i2p has exits,

I do not care about exit nodes.

I am not open to relitigating Java. I thought that was done and I didn't want to start. I have, hopefully, shot down the Windows jets before they could scramble. I have threatened anyone that wants to discuss C++. I will hack anyone that wants to discuss distros. I would like to be untagged if anyone wants to discuss those topics.

I am interested in the question that I asked, the question that was promptly ignored, and the question that, if it were answered, would actually matter: is there a reason to care about i2p specifically (i.e., a reason that does not also apply to Tor)? Hyperbole above aside, I care about this question's answer and I do not care about i2p unless I know the answer, so I'd like to be left out of further discussion of i2p unless someone can tell me that. I have run it; it didn't get me anything I wanted. So the executable has sat in ~/src for two years, doing nothing, because I don't need it.