>Large existing codebases are a strength of C++ though. Any new replacement language won't magically make those codebases go away. Which I already said... >>I

>Large existing codebases are a strength of C++ though. Any new replacement language won't magically make those codebases go away. Which I already said... >>I don't debate this fact. But legacy C code never stood in the way of C++'s adoption. There are always gonna be MORE programmers tomorrow, then today. People adopting a language is hardly a zero sum game. >For example GCC is begin ported to C++ with relative ease, while a rewrite in rust would be a significantly more complex endeavor. Source or opinion? >Then again, beyond lifetime checking, rust and C++ are very similar languages and seamless interoperability is not inconceivable. I believe that's the missing feature for rust to achieve world domination. No I agree. Seemless importing with C++ would be amazing. Name mangling in C++ is just a bit of an issue. Rust works great with C. The FFI is very stable. I use Rust libraries at work as generating 32bit DLL's is possible with nightly.