4 ms·

"Within C++, there is a much smaller and cleaner language struggling to get out ... And no, that smaller and cleaner language is not Java or C#. " B. Stroustru

"Within C++, there is a much smaller and cleaner language struggling to get out ... And no, that smaller and cleaner language is not Java or C#. " B. Stroustrup D or Rust? D and Rust can hardly be considered small and clean languages. D is syntactically close to C++. Rust has 4 pointer types ( http://static.rust-lang.org/doc/rust.html#pointer-types http://static.rust-lang.org/doc/rust.html#pointer-types ).

Fistandantilus 13y ago
I would say that they're still smaller than C++, which has syntactical and semantic corners that very few people even know about.
- zxcdw 13y ago
  The fact that very few people know about them speaks for them being rare and intuitively not as big of a problem in the real world than people make it seem like.
gnuvince 13y ago
D is syntactically close to C++, but not C++; Walter Bright made some very judicious choices to make parsing unambiguous and fast. Rust has 4 pointer types, three of which you will use regulary. This design decision is in perfect accordance with the goals of the language, offering a language with safety and performance in mind. It takes a while to get used to, but I don't think that makes the language any less clean.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  Not just that, but C++ has one pointer type. Oh, and if you're building a big app, you will probably use and have to learn about shared_ptr, uniq_ptr... and then you're right back to Rust with more typing and less guarantees. There are good arguments not to use Rust today, but I think the 'it has four pointers' complaint is a cop-out, personally.
  - gnuvince 13y ago
    Most reasons not to use Rust come down to the implementation (stability of the compiler, speed of the executables, limited standard library), I haven't seen anyone come out and say that something about the language itself is a complete dealbreaker.
SamReidHughes 13y ago
C++ has a lot more than 4 pointer types. Rust just moved some of them from the library to the language.

Fistandantilus 13y ago

I would say that they're still smaller than C++, which has syntactical and semantic corners that very few people even know about.

zxcdw 13y ago
The fact that very few people know about them speaks for them being rare and intuitively not as big of a problem in the real world than people make it seem like.

gnuvince 13y ago

D is syntactically close to C++, but not C++; Walter Bright made some very judicious choices to make parsing unambiguous and fast. Rust has 4 pointer types, three of which you will use regulary. This design decision is in perfect accordance with the goals of the language, offering a language with safety and performance in mind. It takes a while to get used to, but I don't think that makes the language any less clean.

steveklabnik 13y ago
Not just that, but C++ has one pointer type. Oh, and if you're building a big app, you will probably use and have to learn about shared_ptr, uniq_ptr... and then you're right back to Rust with more typing and less guarantees. There are good arguments not to use Rust today, but I think the 'it has four pointers' complaint is a cop-out, personally.
- gnuvince 13y ago
  Most reasons not to use Rust come down to the implementation (stability of the compiler, speed of the executables, limited standard library), I haven't seen anyone come out and say that something about the language itself is a complete dealbreaker.

SamReidHughes 13y ago

C++ has a lot more than 4 pointer types. Rust just moved some of them from the library to the language.