4 ms·

I don't think it is sad. You explained why it is necessary, C++ has been around for a while, is/was great but there are now languages that can compete in terms

I don't think it is sad. You explained why it is necessary, C++ has been around for a while, is/was great but there are now languages that can compete in terms of performance with fewer drawbacks in terms of security and undefined behavior. If you're starting from scratch, it is important to strongly consider which language and platform best suits your needs. Anecdotally, a lot of companies have found success using newer languages because they tend to attract a better proportion of talented people.

n00b101 11y ago
> there are now languages that can compete in terms of performance Such as?
- steveklabnik 11y ago
  If Rust code is slower than equivalent C++, it's a bug. We track performance bugs, please file them :)
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    I like the quip but that's barely an answer given OP avoided Rust specifically. There's a difference between a high-performing language in development (and debugging) vs a high-performing language with over a decade of work into its tooling and support. The latter's strengths and weaknesses are known through and through with many implementation and library problems likely worked out long ago. So, if it was apples to apples, I'd probably cite Ada, Eiffel, Modula-3, or Component Pascal as the closest to C++ in terms of performance and key features while being safer and more readable. Each has had years of work, support from commercial sector (except Modula-3 now), and programs tend to work more than break after a compile. That said, your Rust work is exciting and I hope it gets in that same category. It's just so new and evolving that its not in C++'s class in terms of risk or predictability. Not yet.
    - steveklabnik 11y ago
      Absolutely. I was responding more to this conversation than the author; they specifically said "new" languages :) Your points are all legit. Unfortunately, the only way to get an old language is to start with a new one, and then let time pass.
      - vram22 11y ago
        Last sentence is quotable :)
        nickpsecurity 11y ago
        I agree haha.
- Shorel 11y ago
  D.

n00b101 11y ago

> there are now languages that can compete in terms of performance Such as?

steveklabnik 11y ago
If Rust code is slower than equivalent C++, it's a bug. We track performance bugs, please file them :)
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  I like the quip but that's barely an answer given OP avoided Rust specifically. There's a difference between a high-performing language in development (and debugging) vs a high-performing language with over a decade of work into its tooling and support. The latter's strengths and weaknesses are known through and through with many implementation and library problems likely worked out long ago. So, if it was apples to apples, I'd probably cite Ada, Eiffel, Modula-3, or Component Pascal as the closest to C++ in terms of performance and key features while being safer and more readable. Each has had years of work, support from commercial sector (except Modula-3 now), and programs tend to work more than break after a compile. That said, your Rust work is exciting and I hope it gets in that same category. It's just so new and evolving that its not in C++'s class in terms of risk or predictability. Not yet.
  - steveklabnik 11y ago
    Absolutely. I was responding more to this conversation than the author; they specifically said "new" languages :) Your points are all legit. Unfortunately, the only way to get an old language is to start with a new one, and then let time pass.
    - vram22 11y ago
      Last sentence is quotable :)
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        I agree haha.
Shorel 11y ago
D.