Hacker News Reader

Comment by steveklabnik | Hacker News Reader

That depends on what you think of as being the core of C. Or, for example, some see Rust as the next C++, which is itself the next C, so is Rust _transitively_ the next C?

Programming languages never die, so I don't have a personal opinion on this point, exactly. For me, I would only write C code if I was working on a C project, or if I couldn't get a Rust compiler for the target platform. My starting point would be Rust, it would have to be disqualified for me to use C. Then again, I am the most biased person possible... (and also prefer C to C++) But regardless, C will never, ever die, so talk of Rust 'killing' or 'replacing' C is misguided, in my opinion.

View on HN

I'd consider a language dead if there were no (or very little) new projects being done in it. For example you might say COBOL is alive because many financial institutions still run COBOL services, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would advocate to start a new standalone COBOL project.

(Queue person who started a COBOL project last week..)

In that sense, I think Rust has a real shot at at least severely wounding C++ or at least opening the door for the real C++ killer (it might be that Rust is a smidgen too strict in the mut ref department to really kill C++, I'm encountering a lot of push back from experienced C++ devs). We're talking about a 15 year timescale though, so that's at least 3 era's of computing.

> In that sense, I think Rust has a real shot at at least severely wounding C++ or at least opening the door for the real C++ killer (it might be that Rust is a smidgen too strict in the mut ref department to really kill C++, I'm encountering a lot of push back from experienced C++ devs).

Experienced X devs pushing back against Y doesn't mean that Y isn't going to displace X; the big factor in displacement isn't whether experienced devs will voluntarily shift (even if Y does displace X, the experienced X devs have the most vested interest, and will be among the last to voluntarily move to Y.)

  > I'm encountering a lot of push back from experienced C++ devs

Yeah, this bit is really interesting. It seems fairly split, though I'm not sure in what ratio. Some C++ devs are really into it, but others are very opposed. When you're used to total freedom, but then the compiler yells at you, there can be frustration...

We've also seen a _tremendous_ amount of interest from people who don't strongly identify as a 'systems programmer' at present. RustCamp was last weekend, and the audience is very broad. It's a classic "growing the pie" situation: Rust may or may not take away some of C++'s audience, but it very well just might make the pool of systems programmers significantly larger. We'll see!

> We've also seen a _tremendous_ amount of interest from people who don't strongly identify as a 'systems programmer' at present.

Can't underline this enough, as a long time WebDev with a lot of JavaScript, Python and Lua experience, Rust really feels like a door opener into the bare metal* world.

Especially as a Node Dev I felt right at home with Cargo. And as someone who only rarely touches C/C++, having the compiler scream at me for the first 10 days or so was probably the best "tutorial" about memory management and ownership I've ever "read" :) Rust really made me think a lot deeper about who / where and when stuff will be owned and eventually destroyed.

Overall, the language, cargo and everything around them fit so well together, learning it has been a real joy so far :)

* Well I've also done Z80 assembler on GameBoy before but that's probably not what people today would consider "bare metal" these days.

For me it's not really the freedom. I already said that elsewhere, but: I don't mind when the compiler yells at me. I just don't like the compiler to criticize my coding style by default. Initially, I liked Rust because it reminded me of C++. But then I began reading the book and basically it was full of statements about the coding style I prefer (and will keep) being bad. That's an incredibly stupid reason, but it kind of keeps me away from the language. But it's also the fact that C++ still is very widespread and has tons of libraries.

I wouldn't say never, of course. I'm looking forward to using Rust. Just not now.

Every language has different idioms. In many cases, what works in C++ doesn't work in Rust. Generally, anything the book says is bad you should take as qualified to mean bad in the context of Rust programming, not programming at large.

Sorry, I didn't make it clear enough. I was primarily referring to code formatting. Spaces instead of tabs, for example, or not writing opening curly braces on separate lines. These things are a matter of taste and should be friendly recommended at best. Guidelines for idioms are important and should occur as early as possible in the book, so that's perfectly fine.

I don't think telling you how to format your code for a particular language is a bad thing. I am quite happy using { on a new line in C# but on the same line in JS, using underscore_separated_method_names in C and camelCasedMethodNames in Java. To me, once you've been round the block with more than one or two languages you can get used to whatever style, but using the style for the language that you're writing in is something you should try to do for other people who read your code.

Reading Java code that uses undercore_separated_method_names or C# code that uses camedCased immediately makes me think the author doesn't know what s/he's doing.

I actually think that the scenario of Rust versus C++ is going to be quite interesting to see unravel, precisely because I don't think one is going to definitively weaken the other, but both be on their respective tails. This is because of the abnormally dramatic evolution C++ has seen over the past 5 years or so, and is hectically continuing.

Though this has pretty much definitively made C++ too large for any single person, and there are some fundamental semantics that ensure Rust will always have the high ground in some areas, the lines related to functionality are getting blurrier.

"Cue", not "queue". :)

"Programming languages never die"

There have been literally thousands of programming languages over the years ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages ) and I can't imagine that more than a handful (which most people itt can name) have survived from the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

Maybe I should say "Programming languages that were used at wide scale never die."

My "mojikun" brainfuck variant is certainly dead, but then again, it was never really 'alive' either.

This may be a bit like hair-splitting, but the language doesn't die, only the implementation does. As long as the language was specified in enough detail, a new compiler could be written for it, and be able to compile the old source code in the language. There is an interesting parallel to natural human languages here as well, a language like Latin is considered dead because no one speaks it as a primary language, but humanity still has the ability to translate and understand Latin texts. The same applies to say Egyptian Heiroglyphics as well. In any case it's interesting to think about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com