3 ms·

If you're remotely sane, you'll always want memory safety. That's not really an optional property, because even in C/C++ compromising memory safety throws you s

If you're remotely sane, you'll always want memory safety. That's not really an optional property, because even in C/C++ compromising memory safety throws you straight into the land of nasal demons. The question is whether you want the compiler to ensure memory safety, or to do it completely on your own without language support. Personally, I've never met anyone who can ensure memory safety in their C/C++ without onerous restrictions even more severe than those rust imposes, but maybe you're superhuman.

galangalalgol 3y ago
And saying c++ has more mature tooling seems insane too. Anyone who has had to mess with depedency trees using git submodules and cmake, conan, bazel, vcpkg, and meson would not call the tooling, oh and hunter too!, mature.
- yagni_dev 3y ago
  You have no idea what tooling means in this context!
  - galangalalgol 3y ago
    I'm willing to admit that is likely, could you enlighten me? I've done professional c++ for a couple decades. My pipelines usually were conan with some dependencies that were not. The used clang tidy and format, san, cppcheck, coverity and tested release and debug builds with clang and gcc. Coverage was sometimes just clang. But sometimes gcc as well. Tests were usually google test. The team standard IDE was vscode. Rust has rustfmt which is one standard. It has clippy which in addition to actual defects it forces commin idioms so code looks familiar. It has san and llvm coverage. It has miri. It supports aflop for fuzzing. And it has a single tool for package management and build. Edit: IDE is still vscode and it works great. The only tooling missing for rust would be formal analysis, which is in work (and which isn't that great a story on c++ either) and gcc. A gcc front end is in work, and there is mrustc to generate c from rust, but yes, gcc front end support would be nice to get all those extra targets without the extra work.

galangalalgol 3y ago

And saying c++ has more mature tooling seems insane too. Anyone who has had to mess with depedency trees using git submodules and cmake, conan, bazel, vcpkg, and meson would not call the tooling, oh and hunter too!, mature.

yagni_dev 3y ago
You have no idea what tooling means in this context!
- galangalalgol 3y ago
  I'm willing to admit that is likely, could you enlighten me? I've done professional c++ for a couple decades. My pipelines usually were conan with some dependencies that were not. The used clang tidy and format, san, cppcheck, coverity and tested release and debug builds with clang and gcc. Coverage was sometimes just clang. But sometimes gcc as well. Tests were usually google test. The team standard IDE was vscode. Rust has rustfmt which is one standard. It has clippy which in addition to actual defects it forces commin idioms so code looks familiar. It has san and llvm coverage. It has miri. It supports aflop for fuzzing. And it has a single tool for package management and build. Edit: IDE is still vscode and it works great. The only tooling missing for rust would be formal analysis, which is in work (and which isn't that great a story on c++ either) and gcc. A gcc front end is in work, and there is mrustc to generate c from rust, but yes, gcc front end support would be nice to get all those extra targets without the extra work.