3 ms·
C is 52 years old; C++ is nearly 40. That's more than a generation. Yet, I'd bet that there are more up-and-coming developers learning C/C++ than Rust today. T
by doe_eyes 2y ago
C is 52 years old; C++ is nearly 40. That's more than a generation. Yet, I'd bet that there are more up-and-coming developers learning C/C++ than Rust today.
The problem isn't just personal preference or inertia. It's that all mainstream OSes, libraries, and system software are written in C/C++. You can't exactly ignore this and not learn the language if you want to work in this space.
Of course, there are many developers who don't work with system-level stuff, and they may be perfectly fine just knowing Java or JavaScript, but Rust is not positioning itself as a direct competitor to that.
- xelamonster 2y agoHow is "too much existing software uses C/C++" not just inertia? That can also change with time.
- doe_eyes 2y agoInertia is doing things because you're used to doing them. This is pragmatism: until the arrival of mainstream Rust-based OSes, there's probably no escaping C/C++.
- xelamonster 2y agoMy point is that the arrival of Rust-based OSes is absolutely in the cards, so while I don't disagree that it would be very difficult to fully escape at the moment that is also actively changing.
- MBCook 2y agoThe world has lots of important COBOL. You’re dead on. Even if everyone committed to all new code in Rust tomorrow, C/C++ will be around for a LONG time. There’s just too much pre-existing code.