Hacker News Reader

i.e. a single-threaded non-atomic shared_ptr

Rust fans can dislike on the "C++ has no central library system like crates" all they want, but there's not many things you actually need when programming that don't exist for C++, even if you don't like them not coming in a little box that looks like other little boxes.

View on HN

The point of the article isn't that single-threaded non-atomic shared pointers are unfeasible in C++, it is that their usage is too dangerous.

The fact that it wasn't included in the standard library for this reason is an argument for this. The fact that even `shared_ptr` has thread-safety footguns, one of which made it to the famous C++ talk, “Curiously Recurring C++ Bugs at Facebook”[1], is another. By the way, every single of the bugs from that talk is impossible in safe Rust.

[1]: https://youtu.be/lkgszkPnV8g?si=cCWASihvIGJ25Jf3

While we're at it, std::atomic<std::shared_ptr<T>>

https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/shared_ptr/atomic2

Yes, this is discussed in the article, I do not understand your point.

This. As soon as I need something it is quick online search away. Amount of stuff available for C++ is staggering

The criticism is less about what's available, for there is more available in C++ than Rust. The criticism is about ease of packaging in a cross-platform magnet that is easy enough.

Boost is extremely popular. I've used it in almost all my projects.

I have exactly zero problems using the same C++ code on Windows (debug and development) and then building and running it on Linux in production

Reply on news.ycombinator.com