Hacker News Reader

Comment by bruce343434 | Hacker News Reader

I have an IDE with clang-lint and I find that it can spot pretty much every mistake. It can even detect some lifetime issues. Other than that my programming style is very much pass-by-value, trust the compiler to inline it, so the typical memory safety issues are simply not relevant to me.

View on HN

Pass-by-value and let LLVM clean it up is also the idiomatic Rust way. rust-analyzer is pretty good for IDE integration, and it will catch way more than clang-lint (global lifetime analysis with guaranteed correctness, not just best-affort local, and thread safety/data races).

Regarding compile times, Rust has a different approach. Instead of a fast cycle of run and see if it broke, it's more of following compiler nags until the program is correct and runs on the first try. Incremental (cached) compile times aren't too bad these days.

Before I tried Rust (I got sick of it and the slow progress of Herb Sutter's research), I have used CLion with clang-tidy and had plenty of memory issues going undetected.

Needless to say I didn't restrict myself to pass-by-value (compatible -> structs with ptrs are problematic as well) style, which seems quite restrictive

With current ISO C++ velocity and the stance to keep doing language evolution in person meetings, I don't think Herb's proposals will ever come to be, and even if they do, it won't matter when they most likely can only make it post-ISO C++26 with best efforts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com