2 ms·
They do list specific reasons in the article... One, C/C++ interop is a priority since they will interoperate with a large variety of C/C++ APIs (sounds like o
by jmull 1y ago
They do list specific reasons in the article...
One, C/C++ interop is a priority since they will interoperate with a large variety of C/C++ APIs (sounds like one of the main points of their project is to integrate things that are largely implemented in C/C++).
Two, they say their aim is "building a lasting system that will support decades of continued improvements." You want confidence that 99.9% of the code you write today remains just as good 20, 30, 50 years from now. I don't think rust is quite there yet (or maybe it is but hasn't yet proven it).
- rapsey 1y agoThe list of reasons is very weak and no point is actually prohibitive against the usage of Rust.
- jmull 1y agoIt's really not clear on what basis you brush away their reasons. Just calling them "very weak" with nothing to support it doesn't mean much.
- rapsey 1y agoThe lasting system bit is very weak. Those old languages are still getting regular releases. Also Rust barely changes from one version to the next, entirely unlike C++! Rust interop to the libraries they list is not an issue. If you are good at c++ and want to continue building software in c++ it is fine. Just be honest about it.