3 ms·
Sorry but that's bullshit. C++ is just a dinosaur plagued with issues inherited by design decisions made before most of people here were born. Trying to replace
by rubber_duck 10y ago
Sorry but that's bullshit. C++ is just a dinosaur plagued with issues inherited by design decisions made before most of people here were born. Trying to replace it has nothing to do with looking for a perfect language.
Rust could have absolutely 0 memory safety features over C++ and it would still be a massive improvement over the mess that is C++ package management and build systems with Cargo. Same is true for many other features. It's not quite there yet in terms of maturity and adoption but there's significant momentum and interest from big players that learning it now will likely put you in demand in a few years.
- blub 10y agoThat would be true if changing programming languages or adding new languages would be zero-cost. Then we could iterate fast to some close-to-ideal language. This black and white thinking is just a sign of immaturity, not of knowledge of a deeper truth. All mainstream languages are capable of delivering business value. I happen to prefer certain characteristics that led me to C++, but I also found Java to be quite fine. I don't think I'd mind doing PHP or even JS for an interesting project. I've done both in the past. I'm not saying we should be completely dispassionate about our tools, it's normal to have likes (I do like C++). But hating languages is rather pathetic and unhealthy.
- rubber_duck 10y agoI don't hate C++, saying rust offers nothing other than memory safety is just wrong, just by being a modern language with zero cost abstractions with stuff expected of modern languages such as modules, package management, sane build system, potential for lower compile times, etc. It's not hard justifying costs of migration when considering C++ problems if something replaces it adequately. Rust has the potential to do that.