5 ms·

Why would anyone use Rust when C++ is here and is already mature?

sgift 10y ago
I haven't used C++ in a long time, but ... can I still use standard language features (Templates) and my code will compile with one compiler, but not the other? That would be a big reason in my opinion.
- AlexeyBrin 10y ago
  GCC and Clang are 100% C++14 compatible, not sure about MSVC but I think it is close to 100% compatibility.
  - mfukar 10y ago
    https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh567368.aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh567368.aspx
- gpderetta 10y ago
  Why would that be a reason? There is still only one rust compiler.
  - sgift 10y ago
    I'd rather have one C++ compiler that works great on every platform than multiple ones that only work on one (or two) platforms.
    - gpderetta 10y ago
      GCC is a great C++ compiler that works on more platforms than the rust compiler. Clang, another great C++ compiler, works on at least as many platforms as the rust compiler. Again, why would this be a reason to prefer rust over c++?
      - carussell 10y ago
        On the off chance that you aren't being deliberately obtuse, here's what's going on: If, given two situations 1. The the set containing compilers for language L is size 1, and that compiler works on multiple platforms; or 2. The set of compilers is > 1, but there exists at least one compiler in the set which is a) popular for use with language L b) not fully interoperable with the other compilers from the set that satisfy (a); then situation 1 is the preferable one Or to put it another way, nobody complains about code not working with compilers that don't exist.
        gpderetta 10y ago
        3. The set of compilers is > 1, and there exist at least a popular compiler that works on multiple platform. Rust is in 1 of course. C++ is both in 2 and 3. In particular for C++, the compiler in 3 works on a strict superset of all the platforms supported by rust. As you are free to support only this C++ compiler and ignore every other C++ compiler (you must not care about multiple implementations otherwise you wouldn't think that 1 is a good solution), it seems to me that 3 is strictly better than 1. edit: I do concede that the existence of a popular but non-interoperable compiler[1] does fragment the community and it has been an issue in C++. Things are getting better though, and if rust becomes popular enough it might become an issue there as well. [1] We all know which compiler I'm talking about.

sgift 10y ago

I haven't used C++ in a long time, but ... can I still use standard language features (Templates) and my code will compile with one compiler, but not the other? That would be a big reason in my opinion.

AlexeyBrin 10y ago
GCC and Clang are 100% C++14 compatible, not sure about MSVC but I think it is close to 100% compatibility.
- mfukar 10y ago
  https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh567368.aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh567368.aspx
gpderetta 10y ago
Why would that be a reason? There is still only one rust compiler.
- sgift 10y ago
  I'd rather have one C++ compiler that works great on every platform than multiple ones that only work on one (or two) platforms.
  - gpderetta 10y ago
    GCC is a great C++ compiler that works on more platforms than the rust compiler. Clang, another great C++ compiler, works on at least as many platforms as the rust compiler. Again, why would this be a reason to prefer rust over c++?
    - carussell 10y ago
      On the off chance that you aren't being deliberately obtuse, here's what's going on: If, given two situations 1. The the set containing compilers for language L is size 1, and that compiler works on multiple platforms; or 2. The set of compilers is > 1, but there exists at least one compiler in the set which is a) popular for use with language L b) not fully interoperable with the other compilers from the set that satisfy (a); then situation 1 is the preferable one Or to put it another way, nobody complains about code not working with compilers that don't exist.
      - gpderetta 10y ago
        3. The set of compilers is > 1, and there exist at least a popular compiler that works on multiple platform. Rust is in 1 of course. C++ is both in 2 and 3. In particular for C++, the compiler in 3 works on a strict superset of all the platforms supported by rust. As you are free to support only this C++ compiler and ignore every other C++ compiler (you must not care about multiple implementations otherwise you wouldn't think that 1 is a good solution), it seems to me that 3 is strictly better than 1. edit: I do concede that the existence of a popular but non-interoperable compiler[1] does fragment the community and it has been an issue in C++. Things are getting better though, and if rust becomes popular enough it might become an issue there as well. [1] We all know which compiler I'm talking about.