4 ms·
In terms of overall language design and semantics, Rust owes a lot more to ML. I'm not sure there's really much of anything that it owes to C. Agreed with the
by mumblemumble 7y ago
In terms of overall language design and semantics, Rust owes a lot more to ML. I'm not sure there's really much of anything that it owes to C.
Agreed with the commenter elsewhere in this thread that Zig seems like a more reasonable contender for a modernized descendant of C.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ufo 7y agoI'd argue that Rust is much closer to C++ than to C or ML. Rust was designed by C++ programmers, to replace code that was previously written in C++. The concept that most guides its design is the idea of "zero cost abstractions", which a very C++ thing as well. ML doesn't mind if abstractions have a cost, while C is a smaller and more spartan language.
- flavio81 7y ago>I'm not sure there's really much of anything that it owes to C. Rust's default behavior of ignoring integer overflows when not in debug mode -to put an example-, put it very close to C.
- steveklabnik 7y agoThe difference is that it’s well defined as two’s compliment overflow instead of UB. That’s a big difference.