Fascinating how defensive C++ lifers can be. Rust builds on the knowledge of decades of C++ programming. It’s basically a compiler enforced set of C++ best practices. It’s strange how hostile some in the C++ community are to Rust.
The camp that thinks Rust is just unnecessary fuss because "you can do it all" in C++ already. They pride themselves with knowing C++ esoterica, and don't like that Rust lowers the entry barrier to writing similar software. They want an exclusive club. They also see ownership as a nuisance. They know you can be equally reckless in Rust too, but they don't like that Rust is so "in your face" about it, too.
The camp that is afraid Rust will marginalise C++ and hence push them towards undesirable (even if high paying) jobs.
There's the camp that's jaded by seeing too many fads come and go, and probably just burnt out at some point. So, they just want to work with what's there and be left alone. They don't want to learn something that they know (incorrectly or not isn't for me to judge here) will be dead in the water soon. And they'll have wasted their energy on it for naught. Or in short, they see it as an unwelcome distraction. This camp also includes "but it has no ISO specification for aviation/etc" too.
I think all these are wrong.
I don't think C++ will be marginalised, it just won't be the default choice for certain domains.
I don't think the extra tooling is a nuisance, if anything in my experience it unburdens the mind from non-domain concerns.
And I also don't think it's a fad, given how productive the language makes people feel, and the fact the Rust Foundation is very serious about the longevity of the project, and that it has many big-player backers.
There's also obviously others too; people come in about 8 billion flavours.
The original statement and the one in parens are directly at odds with each other. If every C++ dev requires years of experience and studying to use correctly, it follows that they have left years worth of code that is not done correctly in their wake. Also, no other (non-esoteric) language requires this high a barrier to write correctly.
> if you can use it relatively well you can write safe code without much trouble
And yet there isn't a single large C++ project that doesn't suffer from violations of memory safety - the one class of bugs that we know how to eliminate completely, if using a proper runtime system.
Do we? Why exactly do we need sanitizers in Rust then?
My biggest issue with most Rust posts is that they set up strawman C++ arguments (that are usually just C code targeting a C++ compiler). I'm sold on all the idea behind Rust and making sure that programmers can't just easily drop down to insecure parts of a language - I just don't think we should be shaming good C++ codebases because we want Rust to "win."
Well, the syntax is alien and new, it doesn't do OO the way 9 out of 10 working developers expect it to, almost all C++ popular design patterns have to be rejected, many of the claims("fearless concurrency") are exaggerated and the Rust evangelists are really really toxic when referring to C++ or C, often simply claiming that fewer bugs is worth the tradeoff from switching to Rust.
I literally saw a comment on HN this past week complaining that OSes are not switching to Rust, almost completely ignoring the fact that any rewrite of a 3 decades old codebase is going to introduce more bugs than it is going to prevent, even if you have perfect memory safety (which you won't, in an OS).
In all honesty, Rust would have been adopted orders of magnitudes faster had Rust evangelists been welcoming, and not accused of being defensive or hostile.
I mean, look through this very page full of comments, and be honest, how many of the comments talking about C++ developers are welcoming to C++ developers?
The majority of Rust programmers I know were C++ programmers in the past. Many, including myself, use both professionally.
Does this, to you, look like a response that is welcoming to C++ devs? I gave careful and impassive reasons, and you strike back with literal ad hominem attacks.
This sort of reply is what makes Rust, as a community, look shallow-minded and toxic.
That jumble of ideas is a good example of the arrogance directed not only at C++ programmers, but also Golang and C.
- Smart pointers
- auto and const references all over the place
- RAII
- Pure data structs
- Free functions
- A little bit of templating but not too crazy
Modern C++ reads a bit like JavaScript strangely!
I yield to your comment.
I didn't say it was.
I didn't say anything about best practice, only about familiarity.
I like the language. I really don't want to deal with their community.
There isn't another live to live until 30 "again", and then be within the Rust culture.
Rust has, by analogy, stapled it's "Ninety-five Theses to the door" of C++ and those C++atholics are afraid their way of life is ending before they do.
False BS
>"those C++atholics are afraid their way of life is ending before they do"
We are into insults area now.
>It’s basically a compiler enforced set of C++ best practices
Its not, its a whole different programming paradigm where the compiler dictates how you write your software. You dont let your creative facilities to drive you or whats best for your domain - you just obey the language rules...