[dureuill]

> As someone who has some large projects in C++ and co tribute to OSS C++ projects I find this isn't true.

Well, that goes contrary to my personal experience (professional dev in C++11 and up for a decade), and also to the data recently shared by Google[1] ("Rust teams are twice as productive as C++ teams"). Either your Rust is slower than average, or your C++ is faster than average. Perhaps both.

The reasons for being more productive are easy to understand. Build system and easiness to tap into the ecosystem are good reasons, but tend to diminish as the project matures. However, the comparative lack of boilerplate (compare specializing std to add a hash implementation in C++, and deriving it in Rust, rule of five, header maintenance and so on), proper sum types (let's don't talk about std::variant :(), exhaustive pattern matching, exhaustive destructuring and restructuring makes for much easier maintenance, so much that I think it tends to an order of magnitude more productivity as the project matures. On the ecosystem side, the easy access to an ecosystem wide serialization framework is also very useful. The absence of UB makes for simpler reviews.

[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/1bpwmud/media_lars_be...

[jpc0]

May also be the type of projects I would reach for C++ in as well.

I generally use golang for anything "high" level. I reach for C++ when I actually need that level of control and to be honest most of the ergonomic features in Rust are much higher level than what is needed for proper systems development.

I think my big productivity issue with rust has always been the very weird hoops I need to jump through to make it do stuff I can confirm is correct but the borrow checker prevents me from doing. I can imagine many use cases where Rust would be significantly more productive than C++ but those are places I wouldn't use C++ for in the first place.

Regarding serde, yes it's amazing but also blows up compile times, I know that's rich coming from the C++ camp, but realistically it's not great. I also find rust-analyser painfully slow but that's equally true with clangd except not for speed but more that clangd still doesn't support modules 4 years after they were standardised...

There are many issues with C++, but the reality is there are many issues with any given language and the tradeoffs I need to make with C++ feel better to me than the rust tradeoffs.

And regarding the google report, was that not self reported productivity. Also on a much smaller codebase? I did say for extremely large codebases rust has some very clear advantages and even strong supporters of C++ will agree there ( see any modern Herb Sutter talk, Microsoft, or the reports from Google) but I'm pretty sure we have learnt the lesson that what works for Google or Microsoft or Meta may not work for everyone.

Just make an informed decision is my point, you have tradeoffs for each laguage and for me easy C interop is extremely important for the places I actually need C++. For the rest I use golang.

> The absence of UB makes for simpler reviews

Rust also has UB and you should still be runnig fuzzers and sanitizers on your rust code, that is true for C++. Yes rust reviews are easier, but there are tools available that should be run on CI that can catch those issues, likewise with coding standards. It's not the perfect solution but it's the one we have.

[dureuill]

> Rust also has UB and you should still be runnig fuzzers and sanitizers on your rust code, that is true for C++.

Safe Rust doesn't have UB[1], and safe Rust is what I review 99% of the time. For unsafe modules, you should indeed be running sanitizers. Fuzzers are always good, they are also interesting for other properties than UB.

> tools available that should be run on CI that can catch those issues

Available tools have both false positives and false negatives. Careful review is unfortunately the best tool we had in C++ to nip UB in the bud, IME.

> I think my big productivity issue with rust has always been the very weird hoops I need to jump through to make it do stuff I can confirm is correct but the borrow checker prevents me from doing

Interesting, I remember having to adapt some idioms around caching and storing iterators in particular, but very quickly I felt like there wasn't that many hoops and they weren't that weird. There's a sore point for "view types" (think parsed data) that are hard to bundle with the owning data (I have my own crate to do so[2]), but other than that I can't really think of anything. Do you mind sharing some of the patterns you find are difficult in Rust but should work, in your opinion?

> [rust-analyzer and clangd]

I find there's been tons of regressions in usage in rust-analyzer recently, but IME it blows clangd out of the water. The fact that Rust has a much saner compilation model is a large contributing factor, as well as the defacto standard build system with nice properties for analysis.

clangd never properly worked on our project due to our use of ExternalProject for dependencies.

> And regarding the google report, was that not self reported productivity.

No, the recent report (presented by Lars at some Rust conf) is distinct of the blog article and is not self reported productivity. They measured the time taken to perform "similar tasks", which google is uniquely positioned to do because it is such a large organization.

> Just make an informed decision is my point, you have tradeoffs for each laguage and for me easy C interop is extremely important for the places I actually need C++. For the rest I use golang.

That's fair. I would say the tradeoff goes very far in the Rust direction, but I have strong bias against golang (I find it verbose and inexpressive, I don't like that it allows data races[3])

[1]: to be precise, if safe Rust has UB it is a compiler bug or a bug in underlying unsafe code. By safe Rust, I mean modules that don't have `unsafe` in them.

[2]: https://github.com/dureuill/nolife

[3]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.00764

[jpc0]

> Interesting, I remember having to adapt some idioms around caching and storing iterators in particular, but very quickly I felt like there wasn't that many hoops and they weren't that weird.

I generally didn't feel that way. I didn't need to change much of my use because O barely ran into the borrow checker. The time I did, was recursively accessing different parts of a pretty central struct but the borrow checker concidered the entire struct a borrowed object. Effectively I couldn't access multiple different fields of the struct if I have the larger struct already as a mutable borrow even though I only access one part of it. It was pretty trivial to confirm that the different functions in fact do not touch the same parts of the struct however the borrow checker simply could not do that. Maybe it's changed recently but I required an actual significant change to the code with several abstractions added when it really wasn't necessary.

I did actually agree with you regarding reviewing code to get rid of UB, I was just a little too verbose maybe. Regarding false positives and negatives with santizers and static analysis, I feel it's worth the pain for a language which I find more expressive for my use case, I'm not against usig rust, I'm against saying it's the universal solution to every problem needing to be solved when in my experience I haven't been able to reproduce that view. There are problems it solves well, I don't run into those often.

I'm also happy more data is coming out on productivity, I feel like it can only help light a fire under people on the standards committee who are indifferent to the issues of C++ to actually push to fix some of the issues which are currently solveable.

Ironically I see with your last point regarding golang that we are very different people ans thats fine. For me I would much rather lean back towards C if I can guarantee safety than the more abstract and high level rust. Honestly I am extremely intrigued by zig but until it's stable I'm not going near it.

We want different things from languages and that is fine.

[dureuill]

> Ironically I see with your last point regarding golang that we are very different people ans thats fine. For me I would much rather lean back towards C if I can guarantee safety than the more abstract and high level rust. Honestly I am extremely intrigued by zig but until it's stable I'm not going near it. > > We want different things from languages and that is fine.

I just wanted to tell you that I agree. A lot of what makes people like or dislike a language seems to be down to aesthetics in its nobler meaning.

> The time I did, was recursively accessing different parts of a pretty central struct but the borrow checker concidered the entire struct a borrowed object.

Ah OK. It helps to model a borrow of a struct as a capability. If your struct is made of multiple "capabilities" that can be borrowed separately, then you better express that with a function that borrows the struct and return "view objects" representing the capabilities.

For instance, if you can `foo` and `bar` your struct at the same time, you can have a method:

`fn as_cap(&mut self) -> (Foo<'_>, Bar<'_>) { todo!() }`

and have the `Foo` borrow the fields you need to `foo()` from `self`, and `Bar` borrow the fields you need to `bar()` from `self`.

Then you simply can call `Foo.foo()` and `Bar.bar()`.