3 ms·

Pushing Rust while slamming C++ is by far not an innocent, purely technical discussion. There’s a significant degree of ideology and grassroots activism behind

by blub 2y ago

Pushing Rust while slamming C++ is by far not an innocent, purely technical discussion. There’s a significant degree of ideology and grassroots activism behind this, which deserves to be criticized. The person which posted the Rust-positive quote is usually very supportive of Rust and chose the one quote which puts C++ in a bad light, yet conveniently forgot to include the numerous criticisms of Rust from BSD developers and the fact that one of the main devs prefers C++ for example.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 2y ago
> Pushing Rust while slamming C++ is by far not an innocent, purely technical discussion. It is when the discussion is about the merits of Rust over C++. I will slam C++ all day long and praise Rust. But I'll also acknowledge that it's easier to do some things in C++ (and C) than in Rust.
pdimitar 2y ago
Would you say Microsoft and Google are slamming C and C++ when they said that from 60% to 75% of all bugs they stumbled upon are memory safety bugs?
- bluGill 2y ago
  Anyone who can't tell the difference between C vs C++ and so put then in a single 'and' as if there is no differece is slamming C++. How does modern C++ compare to old code? is the issue only where we must interoperate?
  - pdimitar 2y ago
    "Can't tell the difference between C and C++" is non-charitable interpretation and is not important here, the important part was memory safety.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      I have seen too many people talk about C and C++ in what quickly becomes clear is a case of they cannot tell the difference. As such I just assume the non-charitable interpretation - I think it is reasonable to assume anybody who knows modern C++ will want to carefully discuss it separate from C.
      - pdimitar 2y ago
        Sure, I can accept that happens. Having in mind that C++ has a metric ton of footguns as well as C, I am not sure the difference is very meaningful in practical terms. After all, "if you know what you are doing there will not be memory safety bugs" is said by the C proponents as well.
  - orangeboats 2y ago
    I like the point made by some other comment in this thread: The "modern C++" argument is tiring. It only truly works if C++ has a hard mode-switch between modern and legacy C++, which it doesn't have. Things like smart pointers reduce memory bugs, true, but Absolutely Nothing in modern C++ disallow you to mix in raw pointers too. At best you have conventions requiring people to utilize the modern features, but that is asking the humans writing the code to be disciplined, and you know very well we are not. Mistakes happen. If modern C++ has a `legacy` block that works in a similar vein as Rust's `unsafe` then perhaps your position would have been much stronger. Alas, it'd be very weak still because modern C++ continues to carry the baggages of legacy C++.

by blub 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kelnos 2y ago

> Pushing Rust while slamming C++ is by far not an innocent, purely technical discussion. It is when the discussion is about the merits of Rust over C++. I will slam C++ all day long and praise Rust. But I'll also acknowledge that it's easier to do some things in C++ (and C) than in Rust.

pdimitar 2y ago

Would you say Microsoft and Google are slamming C and C++ when they said that from 60% to 75% of all bugs they stumbled upon are memory safety bugs?

bluGill 2y ago
Anyone who can't tell the difference between C vs C++ and so put then in a single 'and' as if there is no differece is slamming C++. How does modern C++ compare to old code? is the issue only where we must interoperate?
- pdimitar 2y ago
  "Can't tell the difference between C and C++" is non-charitable interpretation and is not important here, the important part was memory safety.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    I have seen too many people talk about C and C++ in what quickly becomes clear is a case of they cannot tell the difference. As such I just assume the non-charitable interpretation - I think it is reasonable to assume anybody who knows modern C++ will want to carefully discuss it separate from C.
    - pdimitar 2y ago
      Sure, I can accept that happens. Having in mind that C++ has a metric ton of footguns as well as C, I am not sure the difference is very meaningful in practical terms. After all, "if you know what you are doing there will not be memory safety bugs" is said by the C proponents as well.
- orangeboats 2y ago
  I like the point made by some other comment in this thread: The "modern C++" argument is tiring. It only truly works if C++ has a hard mode-switch between modern and legacy C++, which it doesn't have. Things like smart pointers reduce memory bugs, true, but Absolutely Nothing in modern C++ disallow you to mix in raw pointers too. At best you have conventions requiring people to utilize the modern features, but that is asking the humans writing the code to be disciplined, and you know very well we are not. Mistakes happen. If modern C++ has a `legacy` block that works in a similar vein as Rust's `unsafe` then perhaps your position would have been much stronger. Alas, it'd be very weak still because modern C++ continues to carry the baggages of legacy C++.