3 ms·

I get your point and I like driving a manual car, but there’s a reason the whole world has switched to automatic

• noworriesnate 1y ago
  There's essentially no learning curve moving from manual to automatic. But moving from C/C++ to Rust, there's a big learning curve.
  • nielsbot 1y ago
    So not the perfect analogy--my point is the "manual" version isn't always better than the "automatic" version. For one thing, manual transmissions require physical activity and coordination. That's not true with programming languages...
• reddit_clone 1y ago
  Perhaps not always for the better? People eating, drinking and using mobile phones .. I think the luxury of having a hand free with automatic transmission is a contributing factor. Stick shift requires a certain level of attention/engagement that might actually make for safer driving IMO.
  • nielsbot 1y ago
    I mean it's an analogy, so it's not directly the original comparison. I hate C++ but I concede it's possible to get the most performance from C++ if you are diligent. My argument there would be: Ok, use C++ and C (or even machine code) for the most performance sensitive parts, but then use a safer easier language everywhere else.
    • reddit_clone 1y ago
      I am sorry, I was only thinking about the analogy and not the original topic :-) As a motorcycle rider, inattentive car drivers are a sore subject. As for C++, I agree with your last comment. I guess without the gravitation pull of a large existing C++ code base or an existing team of experts or as essential library, there is not much incentive to start new projects in C++. I too am a firm believer in multiple layers, each possibly using different language/paradigm. I find the functional core with controlled and imperative edges approach very appealing.