4 ms·
Agreed, writing seems the most obvious one, as several pain points have been fixed, like smart pointers, lambdas, expanded standard library and a lot of other s
by indigoabstract 3y ago
Agreed, writing seems the most obvious one, as several pain points have been fixed, like smart pointers, lambdas, expanded standard library and a lot of other small things. Also the tools are great and mature and the fact that Bjarne is still involved is a bonus. I think the language complexity is much more of a problem for someone trying to learn the language, than for someone already comfortable with it. Which, may affect its future adoption, who knows.
Still, the people jumping ship to other younger languages and then writing about it remind me a bit about someone trying to justify switching their ageing partner with a younger one. Perhaps understandable, but after some time, the problem may turn out to be elsewhere.
We'll just have to see how sexy Rust and the other current alternatives will be when they get to C++'s age, if they still use programming languages by then.
- gpderetta 3y agoI don't blame people for jumping ships. There are a lot of mature, safe and fast enough languages (no, I'm not talking about you, python) and for many projects there is very little justifications for writing them in C++. I expect Rust to grow to be about as complex as C++, except for the most part memory safe. I still think it would be a big win overall but I don't know if it will significantly displace it though.
- indigoabstract 3y agoIt's probably unavoidable, since no single person has the power to impose a direction for Rust. There's no technical reason why C++ could not be made memory safe if needed, by piling on complexity, like compiler flags and checked smart pointers or something like that, but I don't know if it's worth it.