5 ms·
Yes, by that criteria C++ was successful over C. And C was successful over fortran. There are small communities that prefer the older stuff, but they were bette
by bsdpufferfish 3y ago
Yes, by that criteria C++ was successful over C. And C was successful over fortran. There are small communities that prefer the older stuff, but they were better enough to move the entire industry.
D isn't, and neither is Rust.
> I meant that D could have been in the position of Rust today if done right.
My point was Rust is just a completely different audience. I suppose D could have sold itself as a better JavaScript.
(Sorry for several rewrites.)
- verall 3y agoI think you're correct for D, but for Rust, we'll see. It's a very slow moving industry. I do C++ work all day (embedded) and while there's no current plans to move to Rust (which means it won't happen within the next 3-5 years), I could see it occurring someday. We're finally (usually) allowed to use C++17. I had to use C++03 at times circa 2019 - we're finally done with that. It's _really_ slow moving.
- otabdeveloper4 3y ago> I could see it occurring someday "Someday" is on the order of decades here. By that time Rust will be a hoary legacy language with a list of warts longer than an ISO standard.
- dequan 3y agoNonsense, WG21 is committed to ensuring C++ has more warts and sharp edges than any other language on the planet.
- otabdeveloper4 3y agoI don't agree. Rust very much wants to be a C++ alternative in all (I mean all) respects.
- dequan 3y agoNot really. The lack of fields in traits or a classical inheritance system is pretty strongly missed by some people coming from C++.