[tormeh]

Rust is a way better replacement for C/C++. If you didn't need those then you don't need Rust. It will make your software faster while not exploding in your face like C/C++, but it's not meant for you. There are other languages solving the kind of problems you care about. See: Erlang, Haskell, Idris/Agda, Scala.

And frankly: Your definition of "hard" is a bit restrictive.

[rancur]

> while not exploding in your face like C

not a fan of C++ but I personally think having to wade through the building blocks of C was an immensely valuable reverse turing test (ability of human to exhibit human-like behavior? apparently this term is already taken but you get my idea) and I bemoan the future where everyone is protected from their mistakes. How else did one build motivation to do it right? The gamble of a mistake is much more fun than of a compiler error.

[kibwen]

What a strange objection. In Rust, your mistakes are discovered at compilation time. In C++, your mistakes are discovered when your code blows up in your face at runtime (and cross your fingers that the failure is deterministic). Either way the programmer still making mistakes, but one of these failure modes is clearly preferable.

[rancur]

yes. I'm suggesting the capacity trained and required to write safe-C is the same capacity applied to, e.g., higher level functions of your mind-- such as conceiving of, not developing, but conceiving of some of the performant optimizations in Rust in the first place.

Like a fertilizer that stimulates growth while young but a crutch which stunts advancement in old age.

[kibwen]

Well then you'll be happy to hear that writing correct `unsafe` blocks in Rust requires just as much care as writing correct C code. :)