3 ms·

I'm glad to see it because despite Rusts hype and popularity on HN I love to write C++ and I am even starting new projects in it occasionally. I have read many

I'm glad to see it because despite Rusts hype and popularity on HN I love to write C++ and I am even starting new projects in it occasionally. I have read many times that I should be starting new projects in Rust these days. The last project I started was a 128-bit assembler for RISC-V of all things, in modern C++. I understand that certain languages are better suited to certain things, however I feel like I am solving problems in C++ the way that I want to, I guess, in a very opinionated way. And I don't like to compromise on the design. It's not even about performance, even though C++ is very clearly the king. That said, I am happy that we have a plurality of languages to choose from, and that they are all popular, relative to each other.

TheMonarchist 5y ago
> I feel like I am solving problems in C++ the way that I want to, I guess, in a very opinionated way. And I don't like to compromise on the design. Me too! I'm glad that Rust has managed to champion extensive static analysis forward, but at the same time it's clear that rustc can prove only a proper subset of correct programs correct. I don't like the idea of being restricted to a subset of correct programs. The philosophy of C++ is to allow anything that could be correct, but you can still use tools to detect suspicious code. The difference is that you can ignore the false positives.