3 ms·
Nah, I disagree. Rust fills the void of "natively compiled safe language". If you need something that's "like C++" (whatever that means to you) but safe, Rust m
by deadbeeves 4y ago
Nah, I disagree. Rust fills the void of "natively compiled safe language". If you need something that's "like C++" (whatever that means to you) but safe, Rust may not work for you. And it's certainly not true that no one needs a safe C++. If someone right now starts a new project in C++ and not Rust it's because that's what they think is best all things considered, not because they don't need memory safety.
- eru 4y ago> If someone right now starts a new project in C++ and not Rust it's because that's what they think is best all things considered, not because they don't need memory safety. I guess most reasons are 'use what we know well', and 'use what we have tooling for'. But there's probably some others.
- lenkite 4y agoAnd also a common reason: use the language with features that Rust does not have.