4 ms·
There are other reasons, but having access to the mountain of existing C++ libraries (and C libraries) is no small thing. The shear number of hours that can be
by Night_Thastus 3y ago
There are other reasons, but having access to the mountain of existing C++ libraries (and C libraries) is no small thing.
The shear number of hours that can be saved by using existing known, well-understood, well-developed libraries and tools is enormous.
It will be another decade or two before Rust hits that point, if it does at all. It just takes time.
Also: Rust is a bit lower-level/aimed more at systems programming and forces thinking more about memory and structure than C++ does. That has advantages but isn't always great for higher-level applications. I can whip out a basic gui app using QT but that would takes ages in Rust.
- nordsieck 3y ago> There are other reasons, but having access to the mountain of existing C++ libraries (and C libraries) is no small thing. That's true. But a lot of code has a shelf life. People used to point to CPAN as a huge benefit for using Perl. Most don't any more; while all that code is still out there, a lot of it doesn't really do much that's useful today. It was built for another time. Some of the existing C/C++ code will rot in the same way.
- Night_Thastus 3y agoI think code that is continually edited and expanded over many years, with lots of changes to requirements, if managed poorly, can have a shelf life. But there's plenty of older code that will continue to work just fine essentially forever. I use plenty of older code that hasn't been touched and is fine. I also use libraries that have been continually improved that have been fine. QT isn't perfect but it's been around since '95 and I think that the modern state of it is pretty great overall.