4 ms·
Sure, but memory safety is irrelevant when considering C++ as a C replacement (C++'s memory safety, terrible as it is, is not worse than C's). I'm purely curiou
by patrec 7y ago
Sure, but memory safety is irrelevant when considering C++ as a C replacement (C++'s memory safety, terrible as it is, is not worse than C's). I'm purely curious as to why you'd be able to write something in either
a) C b) Rust but not c) C++.
- ummonk 7y agoYou are reading that backwards. The comment said that Rust is better positioned as a C replacement than it is as a C++ replacement. It said nothing about C being able to do things C++ can’t.
- patrec 7y agoI think that's true. Also given the dominance of C in the unix eco system, it's a more important problem to solve.
- saghm 7y ago> Sure, but memory safety is irrelevant when considering C++ as a C replacement (C++'s memory safety, terrible as it is, is not worse than C's). Wouldn't it be fair to say that reducing memory unsafety as much as possible without hurting performance is a good goal to have when making a replacement for C? Assuming that's the case, it's relevant that C++ doesn't eliminate it as much as Rust when comparing the two languages as C replacements.