4 ms·
The C++ rationale is bizarre. That a 2008 compiler doesn't provide modern features is unsurprising. They've chosen to use Rust is a strange reaction to this lim
by quotemstr 9y ago
The C++ rationale is bizarre. That a 2008 compiler doesn't provide modern features is unsurprising. They've chosen to use Rust is a strange reaction to this limitation, since it would be just as easy, from a toolchain perspective, to just use a modern C++ compiler.
- adrianN 9y agoLanguage features aside, Rust is a lot nicer to work with because it has cargo and using libraries is no longer a pain.
- pjmlp 9y agoDepends which libraries we are talking about, try to use GUI libraries from Rust.
- mratsim 9y agoThat isn't fair, all languages besides JS+HTML+CSS have issues with GUI libraries. Either you go Electron/webview or you have to deal with Qt/GTK for cross-platform GUI.
- pjmlp 9y agoSure it is fair, Java, C++, C#, VB.NET, Delphi, Objective-C, Swift have quite good GUI libraries available. And regarding JS+HTML+CSS, they are still on the stone age of RAD tooling.
- mratsim 9y agoI think you missed the cross-platform part of my answer.
- pjmlp 9y agoSome of those languages do have cross-platform GUI offerings. Even AWT is better than any option currently natively available to Rust. After all, "using libraries is no longer a pain" is not what I felt when converting an old toy application from Gtkmm to Gtk-rs.
- CJefferson 9y agoOne big advantage of rust is that (while some people won't like this), rust assumes you won't install it from your package manager, but download a script which installs it in your home directory. This script is quick and easy. Trying to install a c++ compiler from source (and I've done it several times) is a much less plesent experience, so most people stick with what their package manager provides.