[sylware]

I wonder why there is not the same book for c++... mmmmh... I really wonder... (irony).

[sylware]

It is because c++ has an absurdely and grotesquely massive and complex syntax (like rust...).

[stevefolta]

Yeah, Rust is the language for people who think C++ is not complex (or hostile) _enough_.

[sylware]

When I tried to read some rust, I was surprised on how much alien it is to mainstream languages and how convoluted the syntax is.

[whytevuhuni]

My experience (and I admit I may be too biased given years of prior C/C++ experience) is that Rust's syntax is a necessity, since no other mainstream languages besides C/C++ are as low-level as Rust.

Most mainstream languages have a GC, and don't support distinguishing between values on the stack or references, don't need to deal with lifetimes or don't provide the safety you get with them, etc.

I'm curious though, could you give an example of syntax you consider convoluted, and how you would do it instead?

[sylware]

How do you want to be taken seriously if you don't see the convolution of the syntax of c++ and rust? You are going against an absolute truth.

[whytevuhuni]

Oh, I absolutely see it.

My point was that it's necessary. How would you implement the same features Rust and C++ have, without garbage collection, but with simpler syntax?