3 ms·
As someone who never liked writing anything C++ since 2000+ (did like it before) I cannot agree with this. C++ and Rust are not comparable in this sense at all.
by mgoetzke 7mo ago
As someone who never liked writing anything C++ since 2000+ (did like it before) I cannot agree with this. C++ and Rust are not comparable in this sense at all.
One can argue Rust is what C++ wanted to be maybe. But C++ as it is now is anything but clean and clear.
- lionkor 7mo agoSee my other comment[1] It replaces C++ for me, so I would say it's "a C++" [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47334275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47334275
- keybored 7mo agoAnd in a world of only you your claim is true.
- naasking 7mo agoI think the comparison is fair, strictly in the sense that both Rust and C++ are designed around extensible programming via a sort of subtyping (C++ classes, Rust traits), and similar resource management patterns (ownership, RAII), where Zig and C do not have anything comparable.