4 ms·

First, C++ has changed SIGNIFICANTLY since then. Second, Linus is wrong.

• ncmncm 5y ago
  C++ did not, strictly speaking, exist at that time. I.e., there was no Standard defining it, and most of what makes it useful was not implemented in compilers. About all proto-C++ had that was actually useful and usable, beyond C, was destructors. That changed by around 2003. So it was much less mature than even Rust is today.
  • mempko 5y ago
    Yes, when Linus first tried C++ in 1992 this is true. But the linked comments were done in early 2000s which by then C++ was very mature. So by early 2000s, C++ was already 20 years old. Rust is only 11 right now.
    • ncmncm 5y ago
      Yes, Linus is just full of crap, on that topic. But Rust is more mature now than C++ was in 2007. Fully self-contained projects can move fast.
      • pjmlp 5y ago
        The irony is that many of the complaints apply to Rust as well, even if in another way. Just wait when the first set of monadic libraries full of macros start landing on Linux drivers. I am quite sure Linus won't be amused, but hey at least it isn't C++. /s