6 ms·

> It's like C, but not C? I love it. I believe more appropriate is comparing it to C++ since Rust is a higher level language than C.

by takeda 5y ago

forgotpwd16 5y ago
It seems it's pretty common for people to compare Rust to C, something that C devs understand it makes no sense (e.g. [1]). [1]: https://drewdevault.com/2019/03/25/Rust-is-not-a-good-C-replacement.html https://drewdevault.com/2019/03/25/Rust-is-not-a-good-C-repl...
- steveklabnik 5y ago
  Not all C developers agree with Drew: http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2020/10/11/rust-after-the-honeymoon/ http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2020/10/11/rust-after-the-honeym... (And all of the previous posts he’s made on this subject)
  - forgotpwd16 5y ago
    Does the article you linked necessarily contradicts Drew points (C's portability, spec, implementations, stable ABI, and safety isn't always needed)? Yes, Rust may be a better choice for some (many) use cases but you cannot say it's "like C" or "better C". Like how you wouldn't (I guess) refer to Go as like or better Python although many Go devs are former Pythonistas.
    - steveklabnik 5y ago
      Maybe this exact one doesn’t say exactly against that specific article. It’s not a direct response to it, so it wouldn’t. But the line some people espouse is “Rust is a new C++ not a new C and C programmers who don’t like C++ would never like Rust,” and while some folks do feel that way, it isn’t universal. That’s all I’m saying. C programmers are numerous and in a variety of fields doing all sorts of things, pretending you can speak about this stuff as though there’s a monolith of opinion is a category error, in my opinion.
      - forgotpwd16 5y ago
        >“Rust is a new C++ not a new C and C programmers who don’t like C++ would never like Rust,” and while some folks do feel that way, it isn’t universal. Oh, okay. I understand the point you're making.
- takeda 5y ago
  While I am big fan of C, I didn't meant it to mean that comparing Rust to C++ as an insult. I was thinking more as Rust isn't bare bone like C and has high level language constructs.
smbv 5y ago
I'd argue that it still can be used for low-level programming (ie bare metal Arduino stuff) so it's more like C. One thing I hate about C was the memory management, and I had segfaults all over the place (but that may be more due to my pathetic C skills than anything else imo). When I said "It's like C, but not C" I meant that it can be used for the same applications as C but it doesn't have most of the shortcomings of C itself.
- takeda 5y ago
  > I'd argue that it still can be used for low-level programming (ie bare metal Arduino stuff) so it's more like C. You can do those things in C++ as well. For a while C++ was a superset of C. It was basically C with OO and high level data structures. That's what rust provides as well.

> It's like C, but not C? I love it. I believe more appropriate is comparing it to C++ since Rust is a higher level language than C.

by takeda 5y ago

> It's like C, but not C? I love it. I believe more appropriate is comparing it to C++ since Rust is a higher level language than C.

forgotpwd16 5y ago

It seems it's pretty common for people to compare Rust to C, something that C devs understand it makes no sense (e.g. [1]). [1]: https://drewdevault.com/2019/03/25/Rust-is-not-a-good-C-replacement.html https://drewdevault.com/2019/03/25/Rust-is-not-a-good-C-repl...

steveklabnik 5y ago
Not all C developers agree with Drew: http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2020/10/11/rust-after-the-honeymoon/ http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2020/10/11/rust-after-the-honeym... (And all of the previous posts he’s made on this subject)
- forgotpwd16 5y ago
  Does the article you linked necessarily contradicts Drew points (C's portability, spec, implementations, stable ABI, and safety isn't always needed)? Yes, Rust may be a better choice for some (many) use cases but you cannot say it's "like C" or "better C". Like how you wouldn't (I guess) refer to Go as like or better Python although many Go devs are former Pythonistas.
  - steveklabnik 5y ago
    Maybe this exact one doesn’t say exactly against that specific article. It’s not a direct response to it, so it wouldn’t. But the line some people espouse is “Rust is a new C++ not a new C and C programmers who don’t like C++ would never like Rust,” and while some folks do feel that way, it isn’t universal. That’s all I’m saying. C programmers are numerous and in a variety of fields doing all sorts of things, pretending you can speak about this stuff as though there’s a monolith of opinion is a category error, in my opinion.
    - forgotpwd16 5y ago
      >“Rust is a new C++ not a new C and C programmers who don’t like C++ would never like Rust,” and while some folks do feel that way, it isn’t universal. Oh, okay. I understand the point you're making.
takeda 5y ago
While I am big fan of C, I didn't meant it to mean that comparing Rust to C++ as an insult. I was thinking more as Rust isn't bare bone like C and has high level language constructs.

smbv 5y ago

I'd argue that it still can be used for low-level programming (ie bare metal Arduino stuff) so it's more like C. One thing I hate about C was the memory management, and I had segfaults all over the place (but that may be more due to my pathetic C skills than anything else imo). When I said "It's like C, but not C" I meant that it can be used for the same applications as C but it doesn't have most of the shortcomings of C itself.

takeda 5y ago
> I'd argue that it still can be used for low-level programming (ie bare metal Arduino stuff) so it's more like C. You can do those things in C++ as well. For a while C++ was a superset of C. It was basically C with OO and high level data structures. That's what rust provides as well.