|
|
|
|
|
by timschmidt
410 days ago
|
|
I'm not sure who in your mind is forgetting that, or what the rest of your comment means to communicate. Who are you speaking to who hasn't explored all those things in depth? I see Rust's restrictions as a huge advantage over C++ here. Even with respect to editions. Rust has always given me the impression of a language designed from the start to be approximately what C++ is today, without the cruft, in which safety is opt-out, not opt-in. And the restrictions seem more likely to preserve that than not. C/C++ folks seem to see Rust's restrictions as anti-features without realizing that C/C++'s lack of restriction resulted in the situation they have today. I only maintain a few projects in each language, so I haven't run into every sort of issue for either, but that's very much how it feels to me still, several years and several projects in. |
|
I agree that Rust is designed to be like C++ is today, without the cruft, except all languages if they survive long enough in the market, beyond the adoption curve, they will eventually get their own cruft.
Not realizing this, will only make that 30 years from now, if current languages haven't yet been fully replaced by AI based tools, there will be that language designed to be like Rust is in 30 years, but without the cruft.
The strength of C++ code today is on the ecosystem, that is why we reach for it, having to write CUDA, DirectX, maybe dive into the innards of Java, CLR, V8, GCC, LLVM, doing HPC with OpenAAC, OpenMP, MPI, Metal, Unreal, Godot, Unity.
Likewise I don't reach for C for fun, the less the merrier, rather POSIX, OpenGL, Vulkan,....