5 ms·

That's not going to happen. There's just too much friction to reach consensus on how to move the language in that kind of direction. It's like trying to get a c

That's not going to happen. There's just too much friction to reach consensus on how to move the language in that kind of direction. It's like trying to get a centipede to walk to the food when none of the legs can agree on the best path to take. Before that happens, it's much more likely that some other language that interoperates well with C++ will reach a useful state (with regards to IDE support and other tools) and will be embraced by the community. By "community" I don't just mean hobbyists, but the major members of the C++ committee: Microsoft, Google, Nvidia, Intel, etc. That language might be Rust or it might be some other language that's yet to appear. It might not even be a single language, but several. I personally think Rust is not a suitable successor to C++.

nordsieck 4y ago
> I personally think Rust is not a suitable successor to C++. If you don't mind, what do you think are the main reasons for that?
- i_no_can_eat 4y ago
  One thing that rust doesn't (yet) have is a strong presence and toolbox for usage in scientific computing. In scientific computing, when speed matters, Fortran/C/C++ still very much rule and rust won't take their place anytime soon. Julia has a better chance at that, in fact.
- deadbeeves 4y ago
  I'm still developing my opinion of Rust, but * It's too different. This is to be expected because it was never designed to be like C++. For example, if I have an OOP-heavy application, moving it over to Rust is not a matter of fixing up a few ideas here and there like it might be with, say, Java or C#. It calls for a redesign/rewrite. I don't think a memory safe C++ successor would need to be more like Rust than like C++. * The language is not substantially simpler than C++. I find traits to be particularly difficult to reason about and to follow, to the point that I find myself just trying to find the right incantation that will appease the compiler. And that complexity shows up at build time just like it does with C++.
eru 4y ago
> I personally think Rust is not a suitable successor to C++. You seem to know quite a bit. What drives this opinion?

nordsieck 4y ago

> I personally think Rust is not a suitable successor to C++. If you don't mind, what do you think are the main reasons for that?

i_no_can_eat 4y ago
One thing that rust doesn't (yet) have is a strong presence and toolbox for usage in scientific computing. In scientific computing, when speed matters, Fortran/C/C++ still very much rule and rust won't take their place anytime soon. Julia has a better chance at that, in fact.
deadbeeves 4y ago
I'm still developing my opinion of Rust, but * It's too different. This is to be expected because it was never designed to be like C++. For example, if I have an OOP-heavy application, moving it over to Rust is not a matter of fixing up a few ideas here and there like it might be with, say, Java or C#. It calls for a redesign/rewrite. I don't think a memory safe C++ successor would need to be more like Rust than like C++. * The language is not substantially simpler than C++. I find traits to be particularly difficult to reason about and to follow, to the point that I find myself just trying to find the right incantation that will appease the compiler. And that complexity shows up at build time just like it does with C++.

eru 4y ago

> I personally think Rust is not a suitable successor to C++. You seem to know quite a bit. What drives this opinion?