5 ms·
Still too much syntax. I don't mind security, but Rust defeats the purpose by drowning code in an ocean of keywords and punctuation. I'm a firm believer in enco
by andreasgonewild 9y ago
Still too much syntax. I don't mind security, but Rust defeats the purpose by drowning code in an ocean of keywords and punctuation. I'm a firm believer in encouraging rather than enforcing the right thing; languages are tools, not religions.
Writing correct C++ is perfectly possible, especially if you're willing to put in a Rust-level of effort to get there.
- pornel 9y agoI don't have such impression. Rust has few keywords (should that even be used as a metric?). Rust is very serious about declaring library interfaces reliably. It's leaning towards explicit over magic, early type errors rather than errors at substitution or runtime, so there is a bit of ceremony in function declarations, especially with generics (but then they work without having to put them in headers :) OTOH type inference, automatic-ish memory management, everything-is-an-expression, and a lot of ergonomic help around error handling make up for it. And I really appreciate the uniform enforcement, because I write bugs exactly where I don't expect to write them.
- pcwalton 9y ago> Writing correct C++ is perfectly possible Unfortunately I know of literally no large-scale project worked on by a large team using industry-standard practices (i.e. not NASA levels of verification, which are economically unviable for most software) that has consistently written correct C++.
- fooker 9y ago>has consistently written correct C++. You can easily find examples for correctness modulo errors Rust would have prevented.