4 ms·
I would be careful about what you generalize from "experts in both generally prefer rust", as there is likely a survivor bias in there. Since C++ has been arou
by esrauch 10y ago
I would be careful about what you generalize from "experts in both generally prefer rust", as there is likely a survivor bias in there.
Since C++ has been around much longer the situation is likely "many C++ experts try Rust, the ones that love it become Rust experts", basically if "preferring Rust" ends up being a soft prerequisite to becoming a Rust expert then those who are experts in both will prefer Rust.
I also think there's a bunch of other factors that lead to a similar bias: general pride in favor of the less mainstream languages, for languages like Rust or Haskell it is probably the case that more of the code in that language is written by "hardcore" people, which means code written in that language is higher quality (but not necessarily through any intrinsic benefit of the language, instead through a selection of who is writing that language).
- fiedzia 10y ago> not necessarily through any intrinsic benefit of the language, instead through a selection of who is writing that language I'd say that such selection is intrinsic benefit of the language.
- esrauch 10y agoI just meant to point out that if broad usage actually implies worse average code, then the same thing would happen if rust "wins". You can't use it as an argument for what should win since "has won" will always lead directly to a "shouldn't be winning" argument.