2 ms·

Maybe it's because you're not not a developer who would gain by working with C++. If you don't need performance, speed, or low memory footprint, I can easily sa

by jokoon 7y ago

Maybe it's because you're not not a developer who would gain by working with C++. If you don't need performance, speed, or low memory footprint, I can easily say that you don't need this language, so I don't think you can understand why this language is how it is. Just use something else. But you can also be a little curious as of why some industries are using C++, because if you look hard, there are not that many language like C++. Rust is an exception, sure, but it's very recent and it's not like Rust can pretend to replace everything that is done with C++.

psychoslave 7y ago
>Rust can pretend to replace everything that is done with C++. Do you mean in term of "you can't replace decades of base code in a single day", or do you mean that there are – according to you – scope where C++ is definitely better than Rust?
- the_duke 7y ago
  I'm a big Rust fan, but right now, Rust is still missing a few important features that C++ can offer. Most of those are in progress and will materialize eventually. * const generics: landing relatively soon but still not there * const/constexpr: support is getting better , but is still very limited right now * lack of higher kinded types prevents things that are quite easy to do with templates. The GAT (generic associated types) is being worked on but nowhere near completion * obviously the library ecosystem is tiny and immature compared to what C++ has to offer Feature wise I believe that Rust will be on somewhat equal footing to C++ in a few years, at which point I won't see any reason to use C++ over Rust, except if you rely on certain libraries - or in a domain where Rusts trait system is just inferior to classes + inheritance.
debatem1 7y ago
What a presumption. I do embedded security. For context, that means I use C++ when raw performance isn't that important-- because if it were, it would be in verilog and baked into the silicon.

by jokoon 7y ago

psychoslave 7y ago

>Rust can pretend to replace everything that is done with C++. Do you mean in term of "you can't replace decades of base code in a single day", or do you mean that there are – according to you – scope where C++ is definitely better than Rust?

the_duke 7y ago
I'm a big Rust fan, but right now, Rust is still missing a few important features that C++ can offer. Most of those are in progress and will materialize eventually. * const generics: landing relatively soon but still not there * const/constexpr: support is getting better , but is still very limited right now * lack of higher kinded types prevents things that are quite easy to do with templates. The GAT (generic associated types) is being worked on but nowhere near completion * obviously the library ecosystem is tiny and immature compared to what C++ has to offer Feature wise I believe that Rust will be on somewhat equal footing to C++ in a few years, at which point I won't see any reason to use C++ over Rust, except if you rely on certain libraries - or in a domain where Rusts trait system is just inferior to classes + inheritance.

debatem1 7y ago

What a presumption. I do embedded security. For context, that means I use C++ when raw performance isn't that important-- because if it were, it would be in verilog and baked into the silicon.