4 ms·

Shouldn’t this be Rust vs C++? C++ has a lot more parallels to Rust. Both are big, complex, and safe languages that can tuned for high performance. Infact, I wo

Shouldn’t this be Rust vs C++? C++ has a lot more parallels to Rust. Both are big, complex, and safe languages that can tuned for high performance. Infact, I would like to see more comparisons of Rust and C++ in the future.

burntsushi 6y ago
No? I mean, if you're asking whether a Rust vs C++ comparison is useful, then sure, the answer is trivially true. If you're asking whether a Rust vs C++ comparison is more useful than a Rust vs C comparison, then the answer is "maybe yes, depending." But certainly a Rust vs C comparison is useful on its own.
pornel 6y ago
Author here: I'm a C programmer, who's replacing C with Rust. I've never liked C++ and never felt I fully get it. I've managed to fully grasp Rust though. I don't see that much similarity between Rust and C++ other than both use angle brackets for generic code and aspire to have zero-cost abstractions. C programming patterns have more-or-less equivalents in Rust. OTOH non-trivial C++ OOP or template usage is alien and hard to adapt to Rust. Rust has 1 (one) way to initialize an object. No constructors, initializer lists, or rules-of-<insert number>. Move semantics are built-in, without move/copy constructors/NRVO/moved-out-of state. No inheritance. No object truncation. Methods are regular function pointers. No SFINAE (generics are equivalent to concepts, and dumber, e.g. no variadic). Iterators require only implementing a single method. Operator overloading is all done in the style of the spaceship operator. It's not the same kind of complexity.
mlindner 6y ago
Rust replaces uses of C in many ways that C++ never could so I think the comparison is apt. There isn't extensive use of C++ in the embedded world nor is it used much for writing kernel drivers, but Rust is making big inroads into both of those arenas.

4 ms·

Shouldn’t this be Rust vs C++? C++ has a lot more parallels to Rust. Both are big, complex, and safe languages that can tuned for high performance. Infact, I wo

by nyc_pizzadev 6y ago

burntsushi 6y ago
No? I mean, if you're asking whether a Rust vs C++ comparison is useful, then sure, the answer is trivially true. If you're asking whether a Rust vs C++ comparison is more useful than a Rust vs C comparison, then the answer is "maybe yes, depending." But certainly a Rust vs C comparison is useful on its own.
pornel 6y ago
Author here: I'm a C programmer, who's replacing C with Rust. I've never liked C++ and never felt I fully get it. I've managed to fully grasp Rust though. I don't see that much similarity between Rust and C++ other than both use angle brackets for generic code and aspire to have zero-cost abstractions. C programming patterns have more-or-less equivalents in Rust. OTOH non-trivial C++ OOP or template usage is alien and hard to adapt to Rust. Rust has 1 (one) way to initialize an object. No constructors, initializer lists, or rules-of-<insert number>. Move semantics are built-in, without move/copy constructors/NRVO/moved-out-of state. No inheritance. No object truncation. Methods are regular function pointers. No SFINAE (generics are equivalent to concepts, and dumber, e.g. no variadic). Iterators require only implementing a single method. Operator overloading is all done in the style of the spaceship operator. It's not the same kind of complexity.
mlindner 6y ago
Rust replaces uses of C in many ways that C++ never could so I think the comparison is apt. There isn't extensive use of C++ in the embedded world nor is it used much for writing kernel drivers, but Rust is making big inroads into both of those arenas.