3 ms·
My guess is that for this author's purposes, Rust is in the same place as C++. It can do the low level things, but you tend to spend more of your time working w
by oconnor663 9y ago
My guess is that for this author's purposes, Rust is in the same place as C++. It can do the low level things, but you tend to spend more of your time working with higher level libraries that hide the nuts-and-blots details like allocation.
- pcwalton 9y agoRust libraries don't really hide allocation any more than modern C libraries do. (And if you aren't using modern libraries for stuff like string handling in C, you should be.)
- notriddle 9y agoIsn't the point of this whole argument about avoiding abstraction?
- pcwalton 9y agoI don't see any way in which string.h is less abstract in the "close to metal" sense than a real string or vector library (or Rust) is. The standard C library offers abstractions, just poor ones.
- kibwen 9y agoNot sure why this is being downvoted. Whether or not anyone out there likes Rust, dislikes Rust, or is completely apathetic to Rust, we can unanimously agree that the standard string-handling routines in C are quite poor. This isn't a controversial statement.
- mwcampbell 9y agoWhat modern C libraries do you have in mind?