4 ms·
Attract people with promises based on unwarranted denigration of other technologies. They should present appropriate, independent studies instead, not just clai
by Rochus 6y ago
Attract people with promises based on unwarranted denigration of other technologies. They should present appropriate, independent studies instead, not just claim something. In the article itself you can read that even Microsoft with its billions of lines of C++ code will certainly never switch to Rust. And in C++ 23 something similar to what is not even thought through in Rust today is also planned.
- zozbot234 6y ago> And in C++ 23 something similar to what is not even thought through in Rust today is also planned. Source? The closest thing in C++ to what Rust offers today is the C++ Core Guidelines https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines but these are best-effort in nature and do not have a goal of comprehensively ensuring soundness or memory-safety. And I'm not sure why you're implyng that the Rust featureset "isn't even thought through" when the Rust Belt project has been doing a lot of work on modeling it in a principled and clearly-understandable way, and this has already contributed usefully to the design of newer Rust features.
- Rochus 6y agoE.g. https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/docs/Lifetime.pdf https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/docs...
- steveklabnik 6y agoAs mentioned by your parent, matching Rust’s abilities here is a non-goal for this project. Still very glad to see it!
- Rochus 6y agoThere are a lot of mechanisms in C++ to avoid the issue Rust want's to solve with the borrow checker altogether. And there are proposals going in the same direction as the borrow checker. But in the end, human error can somehow circumvent all these security mechanisms, no matter how much hoopla they are praised today.
- tom_ 6y ago> And in C++ 23 something similar to what is not even thought through in Rust today is also planned I'm sure you're right, but I just have low tolerance for people with Latin-sounding screen names being coy about stuff. What, specifically, are you talking about here?
- Rochus 6y agoThat's my real name, sorry if it's latin sounding. If you follow the developments of the standard commitee, you know what I'm talking about.
- tom_ 6y agoAh, well, if it's your real name, my rule absolutely does not apply - apologies for making assumptions. Your response is quite appropriate.
- saagarjha 6y ago> If you follow the developments of the standard commitee, you know what I'm talking about. I don't, or at least not closely enough apparently; can you tell the rest of us what you are talking about?
- Rochus 6y agoHere is an example from a leading exponent of the commitee, ironically also from Microsoft: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/docs/Lifetime.pdf https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/docs...
- pinkfoot 6y ago> but I just have low tolerance for people with Latin-sounding screen names Did someone scare you as a child?
- tom_ 6y agoSince it's the chap(??)'s real name I am going to be coy myself and refrain from further comment. I was wrong to comment that way, and I'm leaving the post up only to remind myself not to be a dick.
- brobinson 6y agohttps://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/16/a-proactive-approach-to-more-secure-code/ https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/16/a-proactive-appro...
- jstarks 6y ago> And in C++ 23 something similar to what is not even thought through in Rust today is also planned. I'll believe it when I see it. The C++ committee consistently fails to deliver on safety features.