4 ms·

Every C++ project is different. Maybe this one was poorly architected.

• Animats 6y ago
  The original implementation is 20 years old. Some very good people designed it, but it's from the era when computers came with one CPU and GPUs didn't do much. C++ programs tend to be heavily inheritance oriented, with huge lists of includes and inheritance. Decoupling things to parallelize them is very difficult in that environment. Rust is mostly a single assignment language with move semantics, which encourages creating objects (yeah, the Rust crowd calls them structs) and passing them off to something else in a somewhat functional style. So you get programs that are less tightly coupled. That's useful if you find you want to pass an object to another thread, put it on a queue, etc. for performance reasons. Any dangling pointers or cross-thread references will be caught at compile time. That alone makes development far easier.
  • pjmlp 6y ago
    Although not perfect, assuming all source code is available, clang and visual c++ checkers can do similar checks. So it is always a matter of equating the value of a full rewrite and how well the checkers are able to provide valuable feedback. Which I concede Rust will be much better, however then there is the whole loss of ecosystem to also consider.
    • frankzinger 6y ago
      > clang and visual c++ checkers can do similar checks. > Which I concede Rust will be much better, Aren't these two statements contradicting each other?