5 ms·
Exactly the same thing was being said about Java (the first of the C++ killers) back in 1990s. And yet C++ is still around. It is not that easy to kill it seems
by benttoothpaste 5y ago
Exactly the same thing was being said about Java (the first of the C++ killers) back in 1990s. And yet C++ is still around. It is not that easy to kill it seems.
- mountainriver 5y agoJava did replace a lot of c++ and Rust will replace a lot more for low latency applications
- thesuperbigfrog 5y agoJava did replace C++ in many domains, but not all simply because the JVM requires more overhead than C++. The trade-off was more overhead, but faster development and fewer errors due to not needing to manage memory or other low-level details. Java is easier to write than C++ and is more portable than C++, but needs more time to get fast and more memory to work with. By way of comparison, Rust offers all of the speed of C++ and similar low overhead with practically none of the footguns that C++ is known for.
- nly 5y agoRust has a steeper learning curve than C++, which offers a on-ramp from C
- mountainriver 5y agoHuh? Not with anyone I know
- marcosdumay 5y agoJava did kill most of the C++ usage. The overall use of the language grew because everything in IT grew a lot during that time, so the niches where Java sucks grew larger than all of the C++ niches at the start. The real question is if Rust will leave any niche. It looks like it won't, but this is not the kind of question one can really answer.