3 ms·
>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
by 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 agoI'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.