6 ms·

"pretty stable for some time" is not the endorsement you think it is. Some companies don't even use C++17 and stick to C++14. At the same time, Rust has grown

"pretty stable for some time" is not the endorsement you think it is. Some companies don't even use C++17 and stick to C++14. At the same time, Rust has grown to a large and complex thing and deserves a large update to make it more dev friendly (what C++ did years ago). I expect at least one big update before it can settle.

tialaramex 4y ago
It's true that somehow C++ programmers rationalise completely new programming languages with incompatible syntax every three years as "stable" and Rust's stability as "unstable" but turns out that the people actually developing it don't agree with you that just changing everything would somehow make it "settle".
- pjmlp 4y ago
  That stability comes in a dead trees tome that everyone should certify their compilers against.
  - iknowstuff 4y ago
    Nah, this is not a universal truth.
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      Nothing is universal, and everything is relative.
      - nequo 4y ago
        That's quite a universal statement.
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    > That stability comes in a dead trees tome No such "dead trees tome" exists. ISO will explicitly point out that what you're spending an eye-watering sum of money on is just a PDF. Some of the National Bodies will tell you that you can buy this document on paper, but what they're actually doing is contracting out to a local Print On Demand service which either didn't tell them it has a document size limit or they didn't listen. If you splash out anyway eventually what you'll get in the post, instead of your imaginary tome is a CD with the PDF on it. > that everyone should certify their compilers against. Try for a moment to imagine that all the GCC and Clang volunteers own legal copies of the actual ISO document. Now, stop laughing and read. Nobody cares about the actual document, in 1998 there really were academic libraries who bought C++ 98, and they might still have C++ 98, but that's a 25 year old document. Today those libraries would tell an interested user, "I'm pretty sure this is online, go away and search" and they'd be correct. Because it's a PDF not a paper document, ISO C++ is a moving target, what's stable about that? One of the few things about C++ that I unambiguously admire is std::format() introduced in C++ 20 -- but actually the most important feature of std::format() wasn't in the published C++ 20 ISO document, it's an erratum, pasted in much later because it's obviously needed.
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      Plenty of industries care, that is why Ferroceone wants to make it possible for such industries to also care for Rust. ISO C++ is only a moving target if one ignores that there is an industry that certifies compilers for specific standard versions. I imagine a few people at Red-Hat, or the dozens of compiler vendors that take advantage of upstream work in clang can afford a couple of copies of the standard. After all, they have circa 40 years of experience doing so since ISO/ANSI C89 was released.
      - tialaramex 4y ago
        > ISO C++ is only a moving target if one ignores that there is an industry that certifies compilers for specific standard versions. That's what is so funny. You can indeed get the rubber stamp, and it's worthless. Have you watched that scene in "The Big Short" where FrontPoint goes to the ratings agency and basically gets told the agency knows these products are bullshit, but they don't make money unless they say it's good so that's what they do ? Turns out a "ratings agency" wasn't legally promising anything at all, they existed solely because people felt like if someone else says it's good, even if they were paid to say so, well it must be good. Hilarious. But that doesn't matter because nobody wants a C++ 20 compiler which does what the ISO Document published in 2020 says anyway, because that's bad you want a compiler which does what the current document now says about C++ 20. It's a moving target. And I doubt very much that the "dozens of vendors" have even stayed awake long enough to read much of the readily available and up-to-date "draft" document, much less that they insisted their employer spend actual money on the useless and perpetually out of date official ISO document. It's not a great piece of technical writing.
        pjmlp 4y ago
        See, this is the kind of atittude that puts off many C++ devs out of hearing about Rust. A reply quite fitting of the whole RIIR folks.
iknowstuff 4y ago
It has that, it's called editions which have in fact made our lives easier. You don't seem to understand that editions don't break backward compatibility. Those companies would be welcome to keep using Rust 2019, but they won't have to because Rust tooling is not a nightmare, unlike C++.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  Editions can only represent basic changes and the standard library isn't part of them.
- dataangel 4y ago
  The editions mechanism is incredibly weak, every time I ask "Can this be fixed with an edition?" The answer is no.
- kramerger 4y ago
  > Rust tooling is not a nightmare, unlike C++. Please try this: 1. Install rustup on a clean Ubuntu 22.04 x64 2. Open the rust embedded book, go to the getting started chapter 3. Try the first part Early in the tutorial "cargo install cargo-geneate" will gail due to E0282 in git-glob...
staunton 4y ago
Some companies stick to ANSI-C and use a compiler binary from the 90s because new things are scary™. So what exactly does that tell us?
- kramerger 4y ago
  That people claiming Rust is stable don't really understand the industry?

tialaramex 4y ago

It's true that somehow C++ programmers rationalise completely new programming languages with incompatible syntax every three years as "stable" and Rust's stability as "unstable" but turns out that the people actually developing it don't agree with you that just changing everything would somehow make it "settle".

pjmlp 4y ago
That stability comes in a dead trees tome that everyone should certify their compilers against.
- iknowstuff 4y ago
  Nah, this is not a universal truth.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    Nothing is universal, and everything is relative.
    - nequo 4y ago
      That's quite a universal statement.
- tialaramex 4y ago
  > That stability comes in a dead trees tome No such "dead trees tome" exists. ISO will explicitly point out that what you're spending an eye-watering sum of money on is just a PDF. Some of the National Bodies will tell you that you can buy this document on paper, but what they're actually doing is contracting out to a local Print On Demand service which either didn't tell them it has a document size limit or they didn't listen. If you splash out anyway eventually what you'll get in the post, instead of your imaginary tome is a CD with the PDF on it. > that everyone should certify their compilers against. Try for a moment to imagine that all the GCC and Clang volunteers own legal copies of the actual ISO document. Now, stop laughing and read. Nobody cares about the actual document, in 1998 there really were academic libraries who bought C++ 98, and they might still have C++ 98, but that's a 25 year old document. Today those libraries would tell an interested user, "I'm pretty sure this is online, go away and search" and they'd be correct. Because it's a PDF not a paper document, ISO C++ is a moving target, what's stable about that? One of the few things about C++ that I unambiguously admire is std::format() introduced in C++ 20 -- but actually the most important feature of std::format() wasn't in the published C++ 20 ISO document, it's an erratum, pasted in much later because it's obviously needed.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    Plenty of industries care, that is why Ferroceone wants to make it possible for such industries to also care for Rust. ISO C++ is only a moving target if one ignores that there is an industry that certifies compilers for specific standard versions. I imagine a few people at Red-Hat, or the dozens of compiler vendors that take advantage of upstream work in clang can afford a couple of copies of the standard. After all, they have circa 40 years of experience doing so since ISO/ANSI C89 was released.
    - tialaramex 4y ago
      > ISO C++ is only a moving target if one ignores that there is an industry that certifies compilers for specific standard versions. That's what is so funny. You can indeed get the rubber stamp, and it's worthless. Have you watched that scene in "The Big Short" where FrontPoint goes to the ratings agency and basically gets told the agency knows these products are bullshit, but they don't make money unless they say it's good so that's what they do ? Turns out a "ratings agency" wasn't legally promising anything at all, they existed solely because people felt like if someone else says it's good, even if they were paid to say so, well it must be good. Hilarious. But that doesn't matter because nobody wants a C++ 20 compiler which does what the ISO Document published in 2020 says anyway, because that's bad you want a compiler which does what the current document now says about C++ 20. It's a moving target. And I doubt very much that the "dozens of vendors" have even stayed awake long enough to read much of the readily available and up-to-date "draft" document, much less that they insisted their employer spend actual money on the useless and perpetually out of date official ISO document. It's not a great piece of technical writing.
      - pjmlp 4y ago
        See, this is the kind of atittude that puts off many C++ devs out of hearing about Rust. A reply quite fitting of the whole RIIR folks.

iknowstuff 4y ago

It has that, it's called editions which have in fact made our lives easier. You don't seem to understand that editions don't break backward compatibility. Those companies would be welcome to keep using Rust 2019, but they won't have to because Rust tooling is not a nightmare, unlike C++.

pjmlp 4y ago
Editions can only represent basic changes and the standard library isn't part of them.
dataangel 4y ago
The editions mechanism is incredibly weak, every time I ask "Can this be fixed with an edition?" The answer is no.
kramerger 4y ago
> Rust tooling is not a nightmare, unlike C++. Please try this: 1. Install rustup on a clean Ubuntu 22.04 x64 2. Open the rust embedded book, go to the getting started chapter 3. Try the first part Early in the tutorial "cargo install cargo-geneate" will gail due to E0282 in git-glob...

staunton 4y ago

Some companies stick to ANSI-C and use a compiler binary from the 90s because new things are scary™. So what exactly does that tell us?

kramerger 4y ago
That people claiming Rust is stable don't really understand the industry?