7 ms·

I think that Rust simplifies some things that you must do yourself in C++, and learning how to do them is valuable. At the very least, it will help you apprecia

I think that Rust simplifies some things that you must do yourself in C++, and learning how to do them is valuable. At the very least, it will help you appreciate other languages, but it can also show you areas where you get manual control over performance in ways no other language offers. And, perhaps most significantly, there are a wealth of C++ libraries out there that have no equivalent in other languages, and being able to use them is an education in itself.

cjfont 11y ago
If my understanding is correct, you can use any of those C++ libraries from Rust as well.
- kibwen 11y ago
  If those C++ libraries expose a C API, then yes.
yoklov 11y ago
As someone who has written a lot of C++ (and essentially no rust), I think you're mischaracterizing C++. It has a lot of magic that the compiler does for you under the hood, and even more if you are using libraries. If you want to understand what is actually happening on the machine, I do not think it is the best choice. C would be much better.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
The C++ programmers here disagree given how often they point out that C++ close to the machine is actually the C style of programming done with C++ language. It's actively discouraged by the C++ community in favor of the C++ style of programming described in Modern C++, etc. The C++ style gives low-overhead abstractions that increase safety and maintainability (in theory) while aiming for C compatibility and performance. Main libraries and well-written apps are big on metaprogrammed constructs. So, learning to code professional C++ will not help you understand machines more. You'd have to learn C, basic OS/CPU structures, and which compilers produce for certain C statements. Maybe read Write Great Code by Hyde or some online articles. Learn C++ to understand machines? Not happening unless you microprogram a CPU for it on a FPGA.
pcwalton 11y ago
> I think that Rust simplifies some things that you must do yourself in C++, and learning how to do them is valuable. Given that you didn't answer the question, I think it's pretty clear at this point that you haven't used Rust. Rust is a low-level language with low-level control over memory and resources.
- hellofunk 11y ago
  I certainly don't know Rust as well as C++. Some other fellows in this thread provided some features in C++ that you can't learn about in Rust, fyi.
  - pcwalton 11y ago
    > Some other fellows in this thread provided some features in C++ that you can't learn about in Rust, fyi. Variadic generics and template templates are hardly interesting compared to concepts, pattern matching, and lifetimes. I use those every day in Rust, they simply don't exist in C++, and with the exception of lifetimes plenty of other languages have them too, so they're broadly useful to know. Variadic generics and template templates, on the other hand, are useful for a small subset of advanced library authors who have been programming in C++ for years.
- curun1r 11y ago
  Speaking about C, since I never went too deep into C++. The original assertion was: > ...gives a developer more insight into the actual machine... For better or worse, Rust feels like a reference is a proper abstraction over a memory location whereas C drives home that it really is just a number. Perhaps I don't know Rust well enough but, without unsafe, I'm not sure how I would refer to an arbitrary memory location or use pointer arithmetic to access memory locations relative to a known memory location in Rust. Vector indexes in Rust appear to be more than just syntax sugar for addition whereas C allows both array[2] and 2[array]. And I know that Rust will prevent me from accessing memory that's already been freed since it's one of the selling points of the language. Now you can argue that Rust is mostly saving you from unpleasant consequences, and you'd be right. But the fact that C forces you to understand those unpleasant consequences teaches you something about the nature of the underlying machine. C makes you realize just how much of a "wild west" situation exists at that level. It would be very easy for someone to learn Rust without being confronted with that fact.

cjfont 11y ago

If my understanding is correct, you can use any of those C++ libraries from Rust as well.

kibwen 11y ago
If those C++ libraries expose a C API, then yes.

yoklov 11y ago

As someone who has written a lot of C++ (and essentially no rust), I think you're mischaracterizing C++. It has a lot of magic that the compiler does for you under the hood, and even more if you are using libraries. If you want to understand what is actually happening on the machine, I do not think it is the best choice. C would be much better.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

The C++ programmers here disagree given how often they point out that C++ close to the machine is actually the C style of programming done with C++ language. It's actively discouraged by the C++ community in favor of the C++ style of programming described in Modern C++, etc. The C++ style gives low-overhead abstractions that increase safety and maintainability (in theory) while aiming for C compatibility and performance. Main libraries and well-written apps are big on metaprogrammed constructs. So, learning to code professional C++ will not help you understand machines more. You'd have to learn C, basic OS/CPU structures, and which compilers produce for certain C statements. Maybe read Write Great Code by Hyde or some online articles. Learn C++ to understand machines? Not happening unless you microprogram a CPU for it on a FPGA.

pcwalton 11y ago

> I think that Rust simplifies some things that you must do yourself in C++, and learning how to do them is valuable. Given that you didn't answer the question, I think it's pretty clear at this point that you haven't used Rust. Rust is a low-level language with low-level control over memory and resources.

hellofunk 11y ago
I certainly don't know Rust as well as C++. Some other fellows in this thread provided some features in C++ that you can't learn about in Rust, fyi.
- pcwalton 11y ago
  > Some other fellows in this thread provided some features in C++ that you can't learn about in Rust, fyi. Variadic generics and template templates are hardly interesting compared to concepts, pattern matching, and lifetimes. I use those every day in Rust, they simply don't exist in C++, and with the exception of lifetimes plenty of other languages have them too, so they're broadly useful to know. Variadic generics and template templates, on the other hand, are useful for a small subset of advanced library authors who have been programming in C++ for years.
curun1r 11y ago
Speaking about C, since I never went too deep into C++. The original assertion was: > ...gives a developer more insight into the actual machine... For better or worse, Rust feels like a reference is a proper abstraction over a memory location whereas C drives home that it really is just a number. Perhaps I don't know Rust well enough but, without unsafe, I'm not sure how I would refer to an arbitrary memory location or use pointer arithmetic to access memory locations relative to a known memory location in Rust. Vector indexes in Rust appear to be more than just syntax sugar for addition whereas C allows both array[2] and 2[array]. And I know that Rust will prevent me from accessing memory that's already been freed since it's one of the selling points of the language. Now you can argue that Rust is mostly saving you from unpleasant consequences, and you'd be right. But the fact that C forces you to understand those unpleasant consequences teaches you something about the nature of the underlying machine. C makes you realize just how much of a "wild west" situation exists at that level. It would be very easy for someone to learn Rust without being confronted with that fact.