3 ms·

So what? Sure, rust is the new thing, node.js is the new thing, forget about SQL since NoSQL is the current thing. Etc etc, Bla bla bla. I hate this "let's chas

by jjuhl 12y ago

So what? Sure, rust is the new thing, node.js is the new thing, forget about SQL since NoSQL is the current thing. Etc etc, Bla bla bla. I hate this "let's chase every new thing and everything old is shit" attitude. C++ may be old but it does a great job at what it is targeted for (just like Fortran and many other "old" things). I'd really wish more people would stop chasing "new shiney" and just get work done. C++ may be complicated and old, but it gets work done. Old, complicated and legacy does not equal bad.

nightski 12y ago
It's also caused billions of dollars in damage. Hell, even just null pointers. Saying it does a great job is very generous. Even if it is the best language for low level work, it is still barely acceptable. We should strive for advancement and progress in our field. There is a large difference between this and chasing the latest fad JS framework. Unless you are saying that programming is a solved problem and C++ is about as advanced as we'll ever get.
- falcolas 12y ago
  And Rust is still going through its shakedown cruise. I wouldn't yet be comfortable taking it in the deep waters where C++ currently roams. There's still a lot of need for tooling, testing, and letting people with smaller projects (and/or non-Mozilla use cases) shake out the bugs. Give it a few successful years post 1.0, and Rust will be in a better place to truly take the mantle from C++.
  - nightski 12y ago
    Agreed! I do not even use Rust myself (yet). I just do not think the comparison to the NoSQL/JS Frameworks craze is valid. There are real fundamental improvements being tried in Rust, hopefully it turns out for the better.
  - oldmanjay 12y ago
    It's sort of funny that you're holding rust to a far higher standard than c++ has ever met. A more honest post would say "c++ will continue to be used because c++ is what is used and that's how we like it."
    - falcolas 12y ago
      The only standard that I'm holding C++ to is that it's been around longer, which means that the big holes have been patched (or bilge pumps dispatched), and developers who use it are realistic about what they are able to achieve. That doesn't seem like a very high standard to hold Rust to. The problem is there's still holes we don't know about, and the developers who evangelize it are all starry-eyed about "never having to deal with memory again!" When the shine wears off a bit (on both the language and its users), the big holes can be found and patched, the bilge pumps dispatched for the small ones, and Rust can move forward with a lot more confidence.

by jjuhl 12y ago

nightski 12y ago

It's also caused billions of dollars in damage. Hell, even just null pointers. Saying it does a great job is very generous. Even if it is the best language for low level work, it is still barely acceptable. We should strive for advancement and progress in our field. There is a large difference between this and chasing the latest fad JS framework. Unless you are saying that programming is a solved problem and C++ is about as advanced as we'll ever get.

falcolas 12y ago
And Rust is still going through its shakedown cruise. I wouldn't yet be comfortable taking it in the deep waters where C++ currently roams. There's still a lot of need for tooling, testing, and letting people with smaller projects (and/or non-Mozilla use cases) shake out the bugs. Give it a few successful years post 1.0, and Rust will be in a better place to truly take the mantle from C++.
- nightski 12y ago
  Agreed! I do not even use Rust myself (yet). I just do not think the comparison to the NoSQL/JS Frameworks craze is valid. There are real fundamental improvements being tried in Rust, hopefully it turns out for the better.
- oldmanjay 12y ago
  It's sort of funny that you're holding rust to a far higher standard than c++ has ever met. A more honest post would say "c++ will continue to be used because c++ is what is used and that's how we like it."
  - falcolas 12y ago
    The only standard that I'm holding C++ to is that it's been around longer, which means that the big holes have been patched (or bilge pumps dispatched), and developers who use it are realistic about what they are able to achieve. That doesn't seem like a very high standard to hold Rust to. The problem is there's still holes we don't know about, and the developers who evangelize it are all starry-eyed about "never having to deal with memory again!" When the shine wears off a bit (on both the language and its users), the big holes can be found and patched, the bilge pumps dispatched for the small ones, and Rust can move forward with a lot more confidence.