4 ms·

They probably want the performance of C++ without the learning curve of Rust It's not like C++20 is completely different. There's just a lot more utilities in

They probably want the performance of C++ without the learning curve of Rust It's not like C++20 is completely different. There's just a lot more utilities in the stdlib so hopefully less raw pointer magic.

Shorel 4y ago
D-lang exists.
lelanthran 4y ago
> It's not like C++20 is completely different. There's just a lot more utilities in the stdlib so hopefully less raw pointer magic. What was best practice for C++03 is not the same for C++20. Switching a codebase from C++03 to C++20 for a nontrivial codebase means changing design so radically it may as well be a new project, rewritten from scratch. It'd certainly be easier to rewrite in C++20 for the C++03 projects I've recently worked on, than to try to squash in a C++20 design.
zozbot234 4y ago
What learning curve? Rust is easier than C++, and a whole lot easier than C++20 further extended with modern safety guidelines.
- menaerus 4y ago
  Right, "easier" as in: - Immature compiler susceptible to generating performance traps - Build times even longer than the infamous ones in C++ - Simplistic declarative-based build system - Inability to opt-in or to opt-out from static analysis - Harder to scratch up quick PoCs because borrow-checker - More complicated compilation model making it harder to understand, debug and implement workarounds when codegen goes south - Much smaller ecosystem - libraries, toolchains, tools, ... - False sense of security - by default it relies on the ecosystem whose runtime and its OS is implemented in "unsafe" languages - Cannot even live to its "safety" promise because hardest problems cannot be solved without unsafe sections I sincerely wish it was different but at this moment I am not convinced that Rust trade-offs are worth switching to it. This is the PoV coming from a system-level programming, very close to the OS, and with a lot of difficult memory and concurrency scaling issues.

Shorel 4y ago

D-lang exists.

lelanthran 4y ago

> It's not like C++20 is completely different. There's just a lot more utilities in the stdlib so hopefully less raw pointer magic. What was best practice for C++03 is not the same for C++20. Switching a codebase from C++03 to C++20 for a nontrivial codebase means changing design so radically it may as well be a new project, rewritten from scratch. It'd certainly be easier to rewrite in C++20 for the C++03 projects I've recently worked on, than to try to squash in a C++20 design.

zozbot234 4y ago

What learning curve? Rust is easier than C++, and a whole lot easier than C++20 further extended with modern safety guidelines.

menaerus 4y ago
Right, "easier" as in: - Immature compiler susceptible to generating performance traps - Build times even longer than the infamous ones in C++ - Simplistic declarative-based build system - Inability to opt-in or to opt-out from static analysis - Harder to scratch up quick PoCs because borrow-checker - More complicated compilation model making it harder to understand, debug and implement workarounds when codegen goes south - Much smaller ecosystem - libraries, toolchains, tools, ... - False sense of security - by default it relies on the ecosystem whose runtime and its OS is implemented in "unsafe" languages - Cannot even live to its "safety" promise because hardest problems cannot be solved without unsafe sections I sincerely wish it was different but at this moment I am not convinced that Rust trade-offs are worth switching to it. This is the PoV coming from a system-level programming, very close to the OS, and with a lot of difficult memory and concurrency scaling issues.