[wakawaka28]

>In those languages, correct logic and getting the program to compile doesn't guarantee you are free from data races or segmentation faults.

I don't believe that it's guaranteed in Rust either, despite much marketing to the contrary. It just doesn't sound appealing to say "somewhat reduces many common problems" lol

>Also, Rust's type system being so strong, it allows you to encode so many invariants that it makes implementing the correct logic easier (although not simpler).

C++ has a strong type system too, probably fancier than Rust's or at least similar. Most people do not want to write complex type system constraints. I'm guessing that at most 25% of C++ codebases at most use complex templates with recursive templates, traits, concepts, `requires`, etc.

[simonask]

Comparing type systems is difficult, but the general experience is that it is significantly easier to encode logic invariants in Rust than in C++.

Some of the things you can do, often with a wild amount of boilerplate (tagged unions, niches, etc.), and some of the things are fundamentally impossible (movable non-null owning references).

C++ templates are more powerful than Rust generics, but the available tools in Rust are more sophisticated.

[sunshowers]

Note that while C++ templates are more powerful than Rust generics at being able to express different patterns of code, Rust generics are better at producing useful error messages. To me, personally, good error messages are the most fundamental part of a compiler frontend.

[wakawaka28]

Concepts make it possible to generate very clear (even user-friendly) template errors.

[sunshowers]

True but you lose out on much of the functionality of templates, right? Also you only get errors when instantiating concretely, rather than getting errors within the template definition.

[wakawaka28]

No, concepts interoperate with templates. I guess if you consider duck typing to be a feature, then using concepts can put constraints on that, but that is literally the purpose of them and nobody makes you use them.

If you aren't instantiating a template, then it isn't used, so who cares if it has theoretical errors to be figured out later? This behavior is in fact used to decide between alternative template specializations for the same template. Concepts do it better in some ways.

[aw1621107]

> If you aren't instantiating a template, then it isn't used, so who cares if it has theoretical errors to be figured out later?

Just because you aren't instantiating a template a particular way doesn't necessarily mean no one is instantiating a template a particular way.

A big concern here would be accidentally depending on something that isn't declared in the concept, which can result in a downstream consumer who otherwise satisfies the concept being unable to use the template. You also don't get nicer error messages in these cases since as far as concepts are concerned nothing is wrong.

It's a tradeoff, as usual. You get more flexibility but get fewer guarantees in return.

[sunshowers]

> If you aren't instantiating a template, then it isn't used, so who cares if it has theoretical errors to be figured out later?

This seems like a very strange argument to me. For a pleasant experience you generally want to report errors as early as possible.

[aw1621107]

> but you lose out on much of the functionality of templates, right?

I don't think so? From my understanding what you can do with concepts isn't much different from what you can do with SFINAE. It (primarily?) just allows for friendlier diagnostics further up in the call chain.

[wakawaka28]

You're right but concepts do more than SFINAE, and with much less code. Concept matching is also interesting. There is a notion of the most specific concept that matches a given instantiation. The most specific concept wins, of course.

[wakawaka28]

I don't agree that Rust tools are more sophisticated and they definitely are not more abundant. You just have a language that is more anal up front. C++ has many different compilers, analyzers, debuggers, linting tools, leak detectors, profilers, etc. It turns out that 40 years of use leads to significant development that is hard to rebuild from scratch.

I seem to have struck a nerve with my post, which got 4 downvotes so far. Just for saying Rust is not actually better than C++ in this one regard lol.

[simonask]

I think it’s because you misread my comment by skimming over the important parts.

This isn’t about tooling, it’s about language features and type systems.