4 ms·

a couple of things: 1. rust is easier to read than c/c++ 2. The toolchain is llvm based and much nicer to use than c/c++. Hell your build scripts are also rus

a couple of things: 1. rust is easier to read than c/c++ 2. The toolchain is llvm based and much nicer to use than c/c++. Hell your build scripts are also rust 3. Given the choice to develop in c or rust I would choose rust 4. In my own experience I have found rust to be simpler to Deal with correctness than c/c++ (I have been both a rust and c++ developer)

lmilcin 5y ago
> 1. rust is easier to read than c/c++ Rust may or may not be easier to read than C++, depends on your experience. But it is not true it is easier to read than C. C is objectively much smaller, simpler language than Rust. > 4. In my own experience I have found rust to be simpler to Deal with correctness than c/c++ That is the whole point of Rust. And also to do this with minimum runtime overhead.
- moltonel3x 5y ago
  Being a smaller simpler language doesn't make it easier to read or write. Go is an even "simpler" language than C, but you quickly suffer from boilerplate-blindness when reviewing it. Being able to write good abstractions can make a huge difference. Having lifetimes, or the use of the semantically-correct integer type checked by the compiler reduces the cognitive load on the writer and reviewer.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  >"is objectively much smaller, simpler language than Rust." Brainfuck is an even smaller, simpler language, it has only 4 characters!
- estebank 5y ago
  C is a smaller language on some axes. That's not necessarily a good thing. Looking at the following function definition, can you figure out how to use it safely? int foo(char* text, char* out, char* s, char* x); If you were to have the same signature in Rust, it would look more like the following: fn foo( text: String, out &mut String, s: &str, x: &mut str, ) -> i32; Now it is clearer that foo is responsible for getting rid of the allocation corresponding to text, which is on the heap. out can be modified and potentially reallocated. s is read only and it won't be deallocated by foo. x might be mutated in-place by foo, but it won't be deallocated. Having a more "complex" way to represent in the typesystem something that C only bothers to call "a pointer" makes things better: safer, easier to skim, explore and understand an API, and allows the compiler to catch API misuses.
- accountofme 5y ago
  Yep that is my experience. C++ sucks. Thinking in rust and getting your ideas out is much much much easier. C is portable assembly, I prefer a language that protects me from footguns. I have better things to think about.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    On the Rust vs C++ scenario, try the next level with Rust: - GUI code - Generic datastructures crates coupled with lifetimes, macros and attributes
  - shakow 5y ago
    It's even worse, C is “portable” PDP-11 assembly. It has been a few decades that a C program is only distantly related to the assembly the compiler will generate.

lmilcin 5y ago

> 1. rust is easier to read than c/c++ Rust may or may not be easier to read than C++, depends on your experience. But it is not true it is easier to read than C. C is objectively much smaller, simpler language than Rust. > 4. In my own experience I have found rust to be simpler to Deal with correctness than c/c++ That is the whole point of Rust. And also to do this with minimum runtime overhead.

moltonel3x 5y ago
Being a smaller simpler language doesn't make it easier to read or write. Go is an even "simpler" language than C, but you quickly suffer from boilerplate-blindness when reviewing it. Being able to write good abstractions can make a huge difference. Having lifetimes, or the use of the semantically-correct integer type checked by the compiler reduces the cognitive load on the writer and reviewer.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
>"is objectively much smaller, simpler language than Rust." Brainfuck is an even smaller, simpler language, it has only 4 characters!
estebank 5y ago
C is a smaller language on some axes. That's not necessarily a good thing. Looking at the following function definition, can you figure out how to use it safely? int foo(char* text, char* out, char* s, char* x); If you were to have the same signature in Rust, it would look more like the following: fn foo( text: String, out &mut String, s: &str, x: &mut str, ) -> i32; Now it is clearer that foo is responsible for getting rid of the allocation corresponding to text, which is on the heap. out can be modified and potentially reallocated. s is read only and it won't be deallocated by foo. x might be mutated in-place by foo, but it won't be deallocated. Having a more "complex" way to represent in the typesystem something that C only bothers to call "a pointer" makes things better: safer, easier to skim, explore and understand an API, and allows the compiler to catch API misuses.
accountofme 5y ago
Yep that is my experience. C++ sucks. Thinking in rust and getting your ideas out is much much much easier. C is portable assembly, I prefer a language that protects me from footguns. I have better things to think about.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  On the Rust vs C++ scenario, try the next level with Rust: - GUI code - Generic datastructures crates coupled with lifetimes, macros and attributes
- shakow 5y ago
  It's even worse, C is “portable” PDP-11 assembly. It has been a few decades that a C program is only distantly related to the assembly the compiler will generate.