2 ms·
> 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?
by 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 agoOne 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 agoI'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++.