3 ms·
I would argue that writing it in C++ would have gotten you there faster, assuming a decent level of experience with the language. There's no ecosystem in the wo
by andreasgonewild 9y ago
I would argue that writing it in C++ would have gotten you there faster, assuming a decent level of experience with the language. There's no ecosystem in the world that beats seamless integration with C and no language that even comes close to being as pragmatic.
- burntsushi 9y ago> no language that even comes close to being as pragmatic. That's what I'm disagreeing with. I find Rust to be extremely pragmatic. There are other competing tools written in C++, and from where I'm standing, their maintenance story is quite a bit harder. Conversely, my tool works seamlessly on Windows, Mac and Linux.
- andreasgonewild 9y agoIf multi-platform is your biggest problem, I can see how that helps. I don't really care that much myself as long as my code compiles on the unixes. I sadly agree that static linking is a pain in the behind in C/C++ land. Still, the language I'm using interacts with the way I'm thinking; if that part isn't working out, all the features in the world isn't going to help.
- burntsushi 9y agoIndeed. Windows support was critical, and I have a ton of users there as a result of it being so easy to distribute a Rust application to them. Microsoft even picked it up and is now shipping it in VS Code. :-) > Still, the language I'm using interacts with the way I'm thinking; if that part isn't working out, all the features in the world isn't going to help. Sure, and there was a lot of friction between me and Rust in the beginning. But my experience---and a lot others' experience as far as I'm aware---is that the friction settles down quite a bit. But yeah, experiences can vary there!