3 ms·
why isn't this getting traction? it's a pretty big deal. it's the most safe of proposed C++ safety extensions by far
by yosefk 2y ago
why isn't this getting traction? it's a pretty big deal. it's the most safe of proposed C++ safety extensions by far
- _lvbh 2y agoDo you see this realistically getting implemented?
- steveklabnik 2y agoIt is implemented in Circle already.
- _lvbh 2y agoOh wow I just took a look and it’s really impressive. Adding more complexity to C++ does make it just that much more difficult for beginners though
- edward28 2y agoIt just looks like an ugly version of rust.
- lenkite 2y agoConsidering that Rust is an ugly language to read, it shouldn't make much difference.
- ramon156 2y agoI love Rust but it didn't invent memory safety. This is a weird take
- fithisux 2y agoJean-Yves Girard
- steveklabnik 2y agoYour parent didn’t suggest that it did. But Sean is very clear that these ideas were inspired by Rust.
- foresto 2y agoWhat do you think is beautiful about Rust, and why? How do you think this proposal's equivalents are uglier?
- kasabali 2y agoWait, there's a beautiful version?!
- rurban 2y agoIf it would work, it would gain traction. Guaranteed.
- missblit 2y agoC++ is a very slow moving language. There are various rumblings about making it memory safe, but if we get a proper memory safe C++ it'll probably be in the '30s.
- Night_Thastus 2y agoBecause C++ is big and old and everyone wants it to be something different. Functional programmers want it to be more functional, OOP developers want more object oriented, etc. And the syntax must look familiar. And everything must be backwards-compatible and all older legacy code needs to work fine. And it must have next-to-no runtime cost. Etc. Making any changes to C++ is a slow process - as it is for any older and larger language. Plus...I think memory safety is a pretty low priority area for C++, frankly. It's harder to shoehorn in at this point, C++ has never prioritized it over raw performance or flexibility.
- pjmlp 2y agoWell, back in the pre C++98 days, compiler provided frameworks used to be safer by default than what got standardised.
- jujube3 2y agoThere's no point. Rust can already be added incrementally in an existing C++ or C project. Like how Servo was in Firefox, or Rust in the Linux kernel.
- jujube3 2y agoWhy was this downvoted? It's not just another generic "rewrite it in Rust" comment. I was making a specific point that incremental rewrites of existing C++ code are very possible in Rust. And that process would not be that different from rewriting the code in a "safe" dialect of C++. If it makes you feel better you can rename the Rust language to "C++2.0" but the rewrite process itself will be the same in both cases. You keep expanding the amount of safe code you have within the codebase over time, one module at a time.
- steveklabnik 2y agoYour first sentence comes across as incredibly combative, and not everyone agrees. Personally, that's why I downvoted it. It would be a much better comment if it was the same thing without it. For example, one advantage of this strategy as opposed to an incremental Rust re-write is that you would retain a single toolchain, whereas that would require having two.
- jujube3 2y agoIs it actually a single toolchain? I was not clear on that from reading the article. Anyway, all I can say is that having used both C++ and Rust for many years, I have zero desire to use another C++ toolchain.
- steveklabnik 2y agoYes, it's an extension to C++, so as it is implemented now in Circle, and as it would be if it were to be standardized, it would be part of the regular toolchain.
- CuriousCosmic 2y agoIt's not that it isn't gaining traction. Rather it's just a massive, herculean undertaking that Sean and co have been working on in the background. Hell Sean only just a few months ago started posting demos on twitter of their C++ borrow checker proof of concept finally working in moderately non-trivial examples. This isn't to say that their progress isn't going well. Rather they've been making incredible progress at a rate nobody really thought possible but this is just a truly Herculean effort. Also this proposal is literally only 2 days old. The work has been in progress for years but this is to my knowledge the first time it has actually been proposed formally.
- steveklabnik 2y agoThis is correct. Sean has been working for something like two years implementing these ideas to make sure they’re feasible, and only recently turned to actual advocacy for them, now that the experiment appears successful.