4 ms·

Sure, but you still get memory safety.

• pron 7y ago
  ... hence a better C++. If a better C++ is what you want, then Rust is a great fit.
  • ncmncm 7y ago
    In 1995 people said Java was a "better C++", but it was basically 1991 C++ plus GC (and numerous misunderstandings), minus concrete types. Rust can do more of the things C++ can do than Java can, but there is a very great deal that can be put in a C++ library that is wholly beyond Rust's capacity. If you have lesser expectations to capture semantics in libraries, or to use such libraries that do, Rust serves. But the gap will only grow wider.
    • wtetzner 7y ago
      > but there is a very great deal that can be put in a C++ library that is wholly beyond Rust's capacity. Just out of curiosity, do you have some examples?
      • ncmncm 7y ago
        The easy examples involve operator overloading. Some more subtle would involve template dispatching according to properties of the types operated on. But just run down the list of features supported in C++, and not in Rust, and think about how they could change how a library interface or implemention would look. Most C++ features are meant for people writing libraries.
        • iopq 7y ago
          Rust has limited operator overloading. You can do common operations like arithmetic, but you can't define symbol soup