4 ms·
Rust is basically C++++ so I doubt it's what that commenter had in mind
by neutronicus 5y ago
Rust is basically C++++ so I doubt it's what that commenter had in mind
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y agoOne of replies to the comment was that C++11 was what the commenter wanted, whereupon the commenter mentioned ways it did not meet the criteria. If you follow the C++ development, you can see a huge effort to make it support more funcational paradigms (see for example the efforts for structural pattern matching). However, its backward compatibility requirements have limited it a lot. So even if Rust was C++++ without the backward compatibility baggage it could easily reach these ideals.
- zerr 5y agoMore like (C)++++ rather than (C++)++.
- tannhaeuser 5y agoC++-C
- neutronicus 5y agoEh To me that's C++ snobbery talking. Long compile times, confusing type system, RAII as guiding design light Just admit that it's basically C++
- bregma 5y agoWithout a sequence point the result of that expression is undefined behaviour. Is that what you're trying to say about Rust?