3 ms·
The point isn’t that no one does it, its that its hard to do right. ...and that is flat out the case for c++, unequivocally. In rust you’d expect it to be bet
by shadowmint 9y ago
The point isn’t that no one does it, its that its hard to do right.
...and that is flat out the case for c++, unequivocally.
In rust you’d expect it to be better, because of (reasons rust is good here, like safety, having a package manager and an ecosystem, etc etc), but practically, there are too many halfbaked solutions, too much ‘use nightly’ and few good stable proven solutions to look at.
Rust isn’t the right solution for every problem, but it should be a good solution for secure very high performance network services.
Its definitely a good goal for the year~
- e12e 9y ago> ...and that is flat out the case for c++, unequivocally. Arguably, this is why Google made go. But I'm not sure c++ micro services are a terrible idea. I think the real problems come with a) feature creep as opposed to writing new micro services, and b) the temptation to write "fast" c++. Just writing plain obvious c++ should give you a leg up on most languages (esp for micro services). But then, rather than refactor and think about the algorithm and data structures (and get a 10x performance benefit from a simpler solution), you could probably get a 2x improvement from a more convoluted, "special" c++ implementation. And that's where you're likely to encounter elder horrors lurking. [ed: I'm however more and more convinced there's no such thing as "plain obvious c" that doesn't have a number of serious issues along the lines of not checking mallloc return values, to utf8 string handling etc.]