3 ms·

The real problem is when it's not just binding: it's actually using metaprogramming, which is a huge part of why I use C++. There's no equivalent to blaze or ei

The real problem is when it's not just binding: it's actually using metaprogramming, which is a huge part of why I use C++. There's no equivalent to blaze or eigen for linear algebra in Rust, and much of that heavy lifting is handled by templates. (There are some libraries with rudimental expression template-like behavior, but nothing as sophisticated.)

kelnos 9y ago
This is the sort of thing that bothers me about these kinds of arguments. Sure, you're always going to be able to find certain domains where existing libraries or language features make a certain ecosystem very well suited. And that's fine. No one's saying to discard the best tool for the job for another one that might have some general advantages but won't actually get you where you need to go. But there are a ton of domains where C++ doesn't have anything special to offer and you could just as reasonably write the code in rust.
- stochastic_monk 9y ago
  Perfect. I absolutely agree. The thing is, I use C++ because it does a lot of things specialized for what I need. I don't work on every problem, and I look forward to the chance to use Rust. That being said, for now, the problems I'm working on are domains that very much benefit from C++ and I will continue to use it. I totally agree that Rust is a great language and has wide applications. It doesn't fit my current needs, but I don't doubt it meets many people's needs. More power to them -- and it's cool to have a "The new C++ killer language" which can actually live up to its hype, unlike Java and C# and Go and D.
  - Majora320 9y ago
    What's wrong with D? I quite liked it when I used it (for a relatively small project). It's not really a C++ replacement (GC), but as a high-level language the only problem I found was lack of a large library ecosytem - the language itself was quite pleasant to work with (more so than C++ and even Rust, which I also like).
    - stochastic_monk 9y ago
      D seems not bad -- I just mean that Rust was the first "C++ killer" which actually could match C and C++ speeds. I also have a lot of respect for Walter Bright and Andrei Alexandrescu. I'm sure I'd much prefer it over Go, for example.
vvanders 9y ago
That's probably where you and I differ, I don't see metaprogramming as a plus. More often then not it tends to lead to some long compile times(which is why boost never sees the light of day in any codebase I work in). I'll also counter that having worked in a fairly math heavy 3D graphics space I've never needed them, although our requirements may be different.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

kelnos 9y ago

This is the sort of thing that bothers me about these kinds of arguments. Sure, you're always going to be able to find certain domains where existing libraries or language features make a certain ecosystem very well suited. And that's fine. No one's saying to discard the best tool for the job for another one that might have some general advantages but won't actually get you where you need to go. But there are a ton of domains where C++ doesn't have anything special to offer and you could just as reasonably write the code in rust.

stochastic_monk 9y ago
Perfect. I absolutely agree. The thing is, I use C++ because it does a lot of things specialized for what I need. I don't work on every problem, and I look forward to the chance to use Rust. That being said, for now, the problems I'm working on are domains that very much benefit from C++ and I will continue to use it. I totally agree that Rust is a great language and has wide applications. It doesn't fit my current needs, but I don't doubt it meets many people's needs. More power to them -- and it's cool to have a "The new C++ killer language" which can actually live up to its hype, unlike Java and C# and Go and D.
- Majora320 9y ago
  What's wrong with D? I quite liked it when I used it (for a relatively small project). It's not really a C++ replacement (GC), but as a high-level language the only problem I found was lack of a large library ecosytem - the language itself was quite pleasant to work with (more so than C++ and even Rust, which I also like).
  - stochastic_monk 9y ago
    D seems not bad -- I just mean that Rust was the first "C++ killer" which actually could match C and C++ speeds. I also have a lot of respect for Walter Bright and Andrei Alexandrescu. I'm sure I'd much prefer it over Go, for example.

vvanders 9y ago

That's probably where you and I differ, I don't see metaprogramming as a plus. More often then not it tends to lead to some long compile times(which is why boost never sees the light of day in any codebase I work in). I'll also counter that having worked in a fairly math heavy 3D graphics space I've never needed them, although our requirements may be different.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]