2 ms·
Comparing a modern language (Rust) to an ancient one like C seems like a straw man argument. For Rust to succeed it needs to be better than other current altern
by HarHarVeryFunny 4y ago
Comparing a modern language (Rust) to an ancient one like C seems like a straw man argument. For Rust to succeed it needs to be better than other current alternatives, so for an article written in 2020 C++-17 would seem a more relevant comparison.
"Rust is safer than C" - meh, so what? So is C++ ...
- maxbond 4y agoThis is a straw man of the article though. It's a discussion of string representation and Rust language features - decisions that were motivated by C. This isn't an article about why you should use Rust, it's about strings in Rust.
- HarHarVeryFunny 4y ago> This isn't an article about why you should use Rust, it's about strings in Rust. Well, the article literally has more C code in it than Rust, so it sure seems to be about comparing Rust to C. Why the author thought it would be useful to compare Rust's strings to C, a language that literally doesn't even have a string type is beyond me. Kind of like saying "Look how fast I can run! Even faster than a walrus!"
- maxbond 4y agoLike I explained, it's difficult to understand Rust's language design - especially why it has multiple string types - without understanding C. Really, it's difficult to understand the decisions of most languages, without understanding C.