3 ms·

> I think Rust's biggest threat is that it's repeating the same mistakes C++ did, despite the hindsight. C++ tried to be everything for everyone -- a language e

> I think Rust's biggest threat is that it's repeating the same mistakes C++ did, despite the hindsight. C++ tried to be everything for everyone -- a language elaborate enough to write applications in a style that appears high-level on the page, and yet not give up on the full control required for low-level programming. For a while, it worked. ... and... doesn't it still work ? An awful lot of C++ applications are being written today, and that can be done at a pretty high abstraction level thanks to the type-level facilities of C++. > . Few in the embedded space find it appealing, many of those who use C++ do (as it is certainly a cleaned-up C++, and a nice improvement in comparison), but too often not appealing enough to switch now, and some in the application space who don't know or don't remember the C++ lesson do adopt it now (sometimes out of sheer novelty) but will likely abandon it later for similar reasons C++ was largely abandoned in that space. are we talking about the same embedded? most C shop migrate to C++. most car brands, and a lot of appliances, use Qt for their UI (C++)

pron 6y ago
> An awful lot of C++ applications are being written today C++ is nowhere near as dominant in the application space as it was in the early nineties. "An awful lot" in nominal terms for sure. > are we talking about the same embedded? Probably not. C++'s niche is "low-level with capable hardware." Some "embedded" software does actually run on very capable hardware.
- jcelerier 6y ago
  > C++'s niche is "low-level with capable hardware." what do you call "capable" ? C++ is routinely used on atmega328, a 16mhz uc with 2kb of ram.
  - pron 6y ago
    The lower the capabilities, the less dominant C++ is, however routinely it is used in absolute terms.
- batty_alex 6y ago
  > C++ is nowhere near as dominant in that space as it was in the early nineties. You’re rewriting history here, friend. Hardly anyone was writing embedded C++ in the 90s. Even nowadays I bump elbows with Developers that refuse to make the move from C in embedded. If we’re talking Desktop apps, well... yeah, Windows was the new hotness, OOP was hot ‘n fresh, and Visual C++ was a BFD. Once more languages came about, people found ones they preferred over C++ (Java was a BFD). As to your last comment, I’m guessing you haven’t worked in the embedded space with C++ if that is your conclusion
  - pron 6y ago
    > Hardly anyone was writing embedded C++ in the 90s. I wasn't talking about embedded in that section, but about applications, and not just desktop. > Once more languages came about, people found ones they preferred over C++ High-level languages were used a lot before, like VB and other RAD languages. But the belief was that they'd be too slow for many applications, like servers. > As to your last comment, I’m guessing you haven’t worked in the embedded space with C++ if that is your conclusion That is correct, and yet the lower the hardware capabilities and the higher the required safety, you see more C and less C++.

pron 6y ago

> An awful lot of C++ applications are being written today C++ is nowhere near as dominant in the application space as it was in the early nineties. "An awful lot" in nominal terms for sure. > are we talking about the same embedded? Probably not. C++'s niche is "low-level with capable hardware." Some "embedded" software does actually run on very capable hardware.

jcelerier 6y ago
> C++'s niche is "low-level with capable hardware." what do you call "capable" ? C++ is routinely used on atmega328, a 16mhz uc with 2kb of ram.
- pron 6y ago
  The lower the capabilities, the less dominant C++ is, however routinely it is used in absolute terms.
batty_alex 6y ago
> C++ is nowhere near as dominant in that space as it was in the early nineties. You’re rewriting history here, friend. Hardly anyone was writing embedded C++ in the 90s. Even nowadays I bump elbows with Developers that refuse to make the move from C in embedded. If we’re talking Desktop apps, well... yeah, Windows was the new hotness, OOP was hot ‘n fresh, and Visual C++ was a BFD. Once more languages came about, people found ones they preferred over C++ (Java was a BFD). As to your last comment, I’m guessing you haven’t worked in the embedded space with C++ if that is your conclusion
- pron 6y ago
  > Hardly anyone was writing embedded C++ in the 90s. I wasn't talking about embedded in that section, but about applications, and not just desktop. > Once more languages came about, people found ones they preferred over C++ High-level languages were used a lot before, like VB and other RAD languages. But the belief was that they'd be too slow for many applications, like servers. > As to your last comment, I’m guessing you haven’t worked in the embedded space with C++ if that is your conclusion That is correct, and yet the lower the hardware capabilities and the higher the required safety, you see more C and less C++.