Hacker News Reader

Comment by ratmeadow | Hacker News Reader

As a long time user of C++, I want to propose a question: do we think C++ will ever reach a point where it is significantly ergonomic and safe enough to use (in comparison to e.g. Python or Rust) via adding new features?

I've used C++ for so long and I'm a good way into thinking that the language is just over. It missed its mark because of backwards compatibility with fundamental language flaws. I think we can continue to add features - which are usually decent ideas given the context, kudos to the authors for the effort - but the language will decline faster than it can be fixed. Furthermore, the language seems to be continually becoming harder to implement, support, and write due to the constant feature addition and increase in semantic interconnectivity. To me it's almost mostly a theoretical exercise to add features at this point: practically we end up with oddly specced features which mostly work but are fundamentally crippled because they need to dodge an encyclopedia of edge cases. The committee are really letting the vision of a good C++ down by refusing to break backwards compatibility to fix core problems. I'm talking fundamental types, implicit conversions, initialisation, preprocessor, undefined / ill-formed NDR behaviour. The C++ I'm passionate about is dead without some big changes I don't think the community can/will handle.

View on HN

> As a long time user of C++, I want to propose a question: do we think C++ will ever reach a point where it is significantly ergonomic and safe enough to use (in comparison to e.g. Python or Rust) via adding new features?

Memory safety semantics aside (needed and will be disruptive, even if done gradually) ---

You could get 80% of the way to ergonomic parity via a 1:1 re-syntaxing, just like Reason (new syntax for OCaml) and Elixer (new syntax for Erlang). C++ has good bones but bad defaults. Why shouldn't things be const by default? Why can't we do destructuring in more places? Why is it so annoying to define local functions? Why do we have approximately three zillion ways of initializing a variable?

You can address a lot of the pain points by making an alternative, clean-looking "modern" syntax that, because it's actually the same language as C++, would have perfect interoperability.

It's an interesting proposal. A new grammar which can express everything (legal) that C++ can, can be automatically translated, but can avoid being ambiguous (https://stackoverflow.com/a/794083).

You'd have an existing language with a new syntax; it can perfectly interact with existing C++ code, but you could make those suggested changes, and could also express things in the new syntax that couldn't be done in the old one.

EDIT: taking an example elsewhere in this thread; taking an address of an uninitialised variable and passing it to a function. Today the compiler can't (without inter-procedure analysis) tell whether this is a use of uninitialised data, or whether it's only going to write/initialise the variable.

A new syntax could allow you to express that distinction.

> You can address a lot of the pain points by making an alternative, clean-looking "modern" syntax that, because it's actually the same language as C++, would have perfect interoperability.

Sounds like Herb Sutter's cpp2/cppfront: https://github.com/hsutter/cppfront

Sadly, Sutter disagrees philosophically with making locals const by default, and I think doing so is table stakes: https://github.com/hsutter/cppfront/wiki/Design-note%3A-cons...

I mean, c'mon

> Show that in today's C++ guidance literature we already teach C++ programmers to make local variables const, and link to a few examples of such guidance (which will contain more details, including examples of problems that the advice avoids). That will start to make the case. If you can do that, feel free to open a "suggestion" issue about it!

That "C++ guidance literature" is called the Rust book. Const by default won.

I dramatically prefer modern C++ to either of Python or Rust in domains where it's a toss up. It's really nice these days.

Like any language that lasts (including Python and Rust) you subset it over time: you end up with linters and sanitizers and static analyzers and LSP servers, you have a build. But setting up a build is a one-time cost and maintaining a build is a fact of life, even JavaScript is often/usually the output of a build.

And with the build done right? Maybe you dont want C++ if youre both moving fast and doing safety or security critical stuff (as in, browser, sshd, avionics critical) but you shouldnt be moving fast on avoinics software to begin with.

And for stuff outside of that "even one buffer overflow is too many" Venn?

C++ doesn't segfault more than either of those after its cleared clang-tidy and ASAN. Python linking shoddy native stuff crashes way more.

I agree that python is often painful to get right. But asan really, doesn't help you unless you have tests that cover the path with the mistake it would catch. Safe rust doesn't segfault ever. Unsafe rust is still easier to get right for me than c, but mostly because c targets weird architectures with weird rules. Rust is also easier for me to develop fast in than either python or c++. For c++ that is because fragmented package management and build systems, and syntax that lets me express things I don't want to, like a race condition. Python slows me down because the duck typing can't help me reason about my design like static explicitly converted types can.

> Safe rust doesn't segfault ever.

https://github.com/Speykious/cve-rs

> That is why cve-rs uses #![deny(unsafe_code)] in the entire codebase. There is not a single block of unsafe code (except for some tests) in this project.

> cve-rs implements the following bugs in safe Rust:

* Use after free

* Buffer overflow

* Segmentation fault

Rust’s borrow checker has been mathematically verified to be always sound.[0] These are edge case implementation bugs that user code is unlikely to touch. I have never had a soundness hole/segfault from safe Rust, and I am not aware of any code in the wild which stumbled into one of these soundness holes either. The main bug is [1], which is very contrived lifetime shenanigans that wouldn't appear in real code. Some bugs [2] are miscompilations coming from the LLVM side. If implemented perfectly, all safe Rust code would be sound, but of course all programs have bugs. The important part is that 99.9% of safe Rust code is sound.

[0] https://hal.science/hal-01633165v2/document

[1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/25860

[2] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/107975

Ditto. I have literally never encountered a segfault in Rust in almost 2y except when calling C code via FFI.

So it is not 100% contrary to some bombastic claims floating around.

I don't feel I was bombastic, simply ignorant. I knew there had been unsoundness bugs in the past, but I thought they had all been fixed at this point. I see why it is taking them so long to fix this one, but yes it is not 100%. I will rather say that I have had no segfaults from safe rust in the decade I've been using it, and that even after 35 years in c++ I still average a couple a month. Probably worse now because I'm rusty when I go back to use it for something. It could be argued I'm really bad at c++, and maybe that is true, but then maybe I shouldn't be using it, and should use rust instead, it allows me to get the same job done.

> https://github.com/Speykious/cve-rs

Caution: Lifetime may not live long enough

https://github.com/Speykious/cve-rs/issues/48

If you don't have good tests with coverage information then your Python and Rust code is buggy too. If you want "as low of defects as I can get from the compiler alone" then your options are things like Haskell and theory-laden TypeScript.

If you have low-defect appropriate test coverage, ASAN approaches linear typing for the class of bugs that the borrow checker catches.

Python and Rust have their sweet spots just like C++ does, I use all three. The meme that either is a blanket replacement for all of C++'s assigned duties is both sikly by observation and not demonstrated by enthusiastic adoption in C/C++ in the highest-demand regimes: AI inference, HFT, extreme CERN-scale physics, your web browser.

Python is better for fast prototyping and other iteration critical work, Rust is unmatched for "zero defect target with close to zero cost abstractions" (it was designed for writing a web browser and in that wildly demanding donain I can think of nothing better).

C++ excels in extreme machine economics scenarios where you want a bit more flexibility in your memory management and a bit more license to overrule the compiler and a trivial FFI story. Zig to me looks likely to succeed it in this role someday.

All have their place, software engineers in these domains should know all of them well, and any "one true language" crap is zealoty or cynical marketing or both.

A coworker found a stack use after free in production that no amount of linters or tidyers caught. It only actually happened in the release build, and asan caught it, but only when we pushed to 100% branch coverage instead of just line coverage. Rust makes coverage much easier to get with fewer tests due to it's type system. It seems really clear to me that rust will be the c++ successor. If you need that extra flexibility, you use unsafe. That still feels less foot gun ridden than c++. The slow adoption of rust is because c++ interoperability is bad and people are stuck maintaining c++ behemoths. Green field rust adoption in c++ domains is much higher. Zig is more of a c replacement, but as much as I like it, I don't think that will happen. C is like a standardized ir. But when sonos wanted to make an arm cpu only onnx inference engine for instance, they made it in rust (tract). When c++ developers get to choose rust, we often do. I can throw earlier career c++ devs with modern c++ experience directly into a rust codebase and have them be immediately productive, but also not worry about them doing horrible things.

Yeah, you and I are both entitled to our guesses about Rust and Zig respectively in the future. Both have serious production projects (bun and TigerBeetle are best-in-class to head off any "hobby project" stuff), neither is making serious inroads to the domains I'm talking about: it doesn't get any hotter than the new CUTLASS stuff, and that's greenfield modern C++ with a standardization regime (mdarray) with 100% industry voting as a bloc for "it's still modern C++ at the frontier". HFT shops have at least some Rust at least auditioning, but the reqs are still C++, and they rewrite anything that alpha decays out.

When it's for all the marbles today? It's C++. The future is an open question, but a lot of us are pushing hard for C++.

That doesn't matter - it cost a billion dollars to write the current project I work on. There is no way I can ask for that much to rewrite it all in whatever. Thus we are stuck on c++ which was the best choice 15 years ago. Anything that makes new code easier to write is great help.

sure we are looking at options - but rust and c++ don't interoperate well (c api is too limiting). D was looking interesting for a while but I'm not sure how it fits (d supports c++ abi)

60 million dollars a year in development for 15 years? What are you working on?

There are many large projects with ~1000 engineers will end up costing more than that.

Chrome doesn’t fit those figures exactly but is close.

...and some components are being rewritten in Rust, if I recall.

Yep: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45140641

Some small parts are. After several decades those small parts will add up but for now rust is almost nothing overall.

Many large financial operations - HFT such as Hudson River Trading or Optiver or IMC or Citadel, or the big C++ systems in the banks - 200-400 developers working on an ecosystem of components can easily clear that.

Easy to reach these numbers.

Many developers never do the math of what their salaries actually cost.

We in consulting are deeply aware of the impact mapping hours and days into money, plus license and support costs, and infrastructure.

Hence why I dislike all those "I rewrote X into Y", great and how many thousands did that fun endeavour cost to the employer?

The billion was the rewrite, not continued maintenance. So billion over around 7-10 years (the early releases greatly lacked features but some of the features had maintenance work done and additional features added while other parts of the rewrite were in progress). But yes at least 200 developers have worked on the project every year, not to mention a lot of testers and such. this is normal for all the different companies I've worked at.

you can perhaps guess based on my comment history but I'm not supposed to state directly.

There's an evolutionary process at work, so it's not really about that rewrite decision, it arguably made sense fifteen years ago to pick C++ - yeah C++ will still exist in say 2040 just like COBOL still exists today and I don't trust anybody arguing otherwise. But whether investing in C++ still makes sense is a different question. That might influence career decisions, and what new projects should do even though a choice fifteen years ago was correct, and it also impacts how to manage your existing project.

We do these night walks out in the Forest. 2-4 hours in the countryside, when it's still pleasantly warm but no sun. Owls, bats, insects and occasionally horses or deer that were not expecting humans - no sudden moves because horses or deer can easily kill you by mistake if startled. Without much light it's hard to be sure whether you're on a trail and if you've reached the fork you expected or just a place where there's a tree in the way.

So, it's not rare to realise we've made a mistake. Now, if you realise after 5 minutes you can "just" backtrack. It's nowhere near as easy in darkness, but it's possible and arguably preferable. However it is also possible to realise after say an hour. You thought you'd be in a clearing, on a ridge, but you're a mile away approaching a river crossing. Oops. It is usually not correct to retrace your steps in this case, you need a new plan taking into account what you know now about your position.

There is a version of C++ that adds complete memory safety to the language by adding features to the language in a way that preserves complete backwards compatibility with existing C++ source code. That version of C++ is called Circle/Safe C++, it represents a monumental amount of effort that was written by a single individual, and it's a complete disgrace that the C++ committee has informally shut the door on that individual:

https://safecpp.org/draft.html

> it's a complete disgrace that the C++ committee has informally shut the door on that individual

What do you mean?

The committee very politely showed him the door.

Yes, I got that much, but I'm curious to see what happened. Do you have any links about it?

The interpretation is probably up for some debate especially since meeting details are not public, but some relevant links are:

- The P3390R0 Safe C++ proposal and the related vote in the 2024-11 Wrocław meeting: https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/2045

- The adoption of the paper P3466 R1 (Re)affirm design principles for future C++ evolution at the same meeting, which contains language which can be interpreted as preemptively foreclosing a Safe C++-style approach: https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/2121

P3466 resulted in a new Standing Document for the committee. SD-10 https://isocpp.org/std/standing-documents/sd-10-language-evo...

The idea in this document was to write down "principles" of the C++ language without regard to annoying facts which might put those principles in doubt.

Which individual are you referring to?

Almost certainly Sean Baxter, the person behind the Safe C++ proposal and its reference implementation (via Circle, which also implements some unrelated features)

There is even a reference implementation, so it could be added to existing compilers?

That would at the very least be better than what we have now.

> There is even a reference implementation, so it could be added to existing compilers?

I don't think it would be that straightforwards since this is one of those changes which depends pretty heavily on compiler internals, unlike library-only reference implementations. It'd be like taking a reference implementation in Clang and "adding it" to GCC/MSVC.

I think it's like 50/50. There's been proposals for various things like --perfectly-safe-subset-only (making that up). But there's so much to fix and so much arguing about whether it should actually be fixed or not.

I would personally like a safe (and fast) subset that doesn't require me to be vigilant but catches every thing I could do wrong to the same level as rust. Then, like rust, you could remove that flag for a few low-level parts that for some reason need to be "unsafe" (maybe because they call into the OS).

There was a good talk from the WebKit team about stuff they did to get more safety.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLw13wLM5Ko

Some of it was AST level checks. IIRC, they have a pre-commit check that there is no pointer math being used. They went over how to change code with pointer math into safe code with zero change in performance.

A similar one was Ref usage checking where they could effectively see a ref counted object was being passed to as a raw pointer to a function that might free the ref and then still used in the calling function. They could detect that with an AST based checker.

That said, I have no idea how they (the C++ committee) are going to fix all the issues. --no-undefined-behavior would be a start. Can they get rid of the perf bombs with std::move? Why do I have to remember that shit?

> do we think C++ will ever reach a point where it is significantly ergonomic and safe enough to use (in comparison to e.g. Python or Rust) via adding new features?

This is an interesting perspective to me, because my view as someone who's been using Rust since close to 1.0 and hasn't done much more than dabbled in C++ over the years is basically the opposite. My (admittedly limited) understanding is that this has never really been a goal of the committee, because if someone is willing to sacrifice backwards compatibility, they could presumably just switch to using one of those other languages at that point. Arguably the main selling point of C++ today is the fact that there's a massive set of existing codebases out there (both libraries that someone might want to use and applications that might still be worked on), and for the majority of them, being rewritten would be at best a huge effort and more realistically not something going to be seriously considered.

If the safety and ergonomics of C++ are a concern, I guess I'm not sure why someone would pick it over another language for a newly-started codebase. In terms of safety, Rust is an option that exists today without needing C++ to change. Ergonomics are a bit less clear-cut, but I'd argue that most of the significant divergences in ergonomics between languages are pretty subjective, and it's not obvious to me that there's a significant enough gap in between Rust's and C++'s respective choices that warrant a new language that's not compatible with C++ but is far enough from Rust for someone to refuse to use it on the basis ergonomics alone. It seems to me like "close enough to C++ to attract the people who don't want to use Rust but far enough from Rust to justify breaking C++'s backwards compatibility" is just too narrow a niche for it to be worth it for C++ to go after.

It's true that without backwards compatibility concerns, Rust looks like a great alternative.

However I think C++ still has some things going for it which may make it a useful option, assuming the core issues were fixed. C++ gives ultimate control over memory and low level things (think pointers, manual stack vs heap, inline assembly). It has good compatibility with C ABIs. It's very general purpose and permissive. And there are many programmers with C++ (or C) knowledge out there already.

Further, I think C++ started on its current feature path before Rust really got a big foothold. Consider C++ has been around a really long time, plenty long enough to fix core features.

Finally I reckon the whole backwards compatibility thing is a bit weird because if the code is so ancient and unchangable, why does it need the latest features? Like you desprately need implicit long-to-int conversion but also coroutines?? And for regular non-ancient code, we already try to avoid the problematic parts of C++, so fixing/removing/changing them wouldn't be so bad. IMO it's a far overdone obsession with backwards compatibility.

Of course without a significant overhaul to the language you'd probably say "screw it" and start from scratch with something nicer like Rust.

I think I might be getting confused about the point you're making here. To me, pre-existing knowledge and the decades-long legacy of C++ feel like much stronger arguments against changing anything in a breaking way compared to making breaking changes to improve the language. I do agree with you around a lot of the new features being introduced not feeling super necessary, but I'm guessing that the stance of people in favor of them is that adding them doesn't feel like it's a huge problem either given that they can do them without breaking anything. My perception is that C++ has already been a fairly large language for a while, and that most codebases already develop a bit of a dialect of which features to use or not use (which you allude to as well), so I could imagine that they expect people who don't like the new features to just ignore them.

I think I'm most confused about the last part that you're saying. A significant overhaul to the language in a breaking way feels pretty much the same as saying "screw it" and starting from scratch, just with specific ergonomic choices being closer to C++ than to Rust. Several of the parts that you cite as the strengths of the language, like inline assembly and pointers are still available in Rust, just not outside of explicitly unsafe contexts, and I'd imagine that an overhaul of C++ to enhance memory safety would end up needing to make a fairly similar compromise for them. It just seems like the language you're wishing for would end up with a fairly narrow design space, even if it is objectively superior to the C++ we have today, because it would have to give up the largest advantage that C++ does have without enough unoccupied room to grow into. The focus on backwards compatibility doesn't seem to be that it would necessarily be the best choice in a vacuum, but a reflection of the state of the ecosystem as it is today, and a perception that sacrificing it would be giving up its position as the dominant language in a well-defined niche to try to compete in a new one. This is obviously a subjective viewpoint, but it doesn't seem implausible to me, and given the fact that we can't really know how it would work out unless they do try, sticking with compatibility feels like the safer option.

The biggest question I have around the viability of breaking changes in C++ is whether you can compile some code with a newer breaking standard, some with an older standard, and link them.

Headers would be a problem given their text inclusion in multiple translation units, but it's not insurmountable; you're currently limited to the oldest standard a header is included into, and under a new standard that breaks compatibility you'd be limited to a valid subset of the old & new standard.

EDIT: ironically modules (as a concept) would (could?) solve the header problem, but they've not exactly been a success story so far.

> EDIT: ironically modules (as a concept) would (could?) solve the header problem, but they've not exactly been a success story so far.

Because they are little different from precompiled headers. Import std; may be nice, but in a large project you are likely to have your own defines.hpp file anyway (that is going to be precompiled for double-digits compile times reduction).

Ironically too, migrating every header in an executable project to modules might slow down build times, as dependency chains reduce the parallelism factor of the build.

There was a proposal for “epochs” (the feature that rust calls “editions” now) but they were effectively rejected by the committee. Not permanently, but there’s some questions that need to be addressed that they initial proposers aren’t interested in following up on, in my understanding.

> C++ gives ultimate control over memory and low level things (think pointers, manual stack vs heap, inline assembly). It has good compatibility with C ABIs.

So does Rust.

> It's very general purpose and permissive

I don't really understand this point.

> And there are many programmers with C++ (or C) knowledge out there already

Indeed, the only thing C++ has for it is it's legacy: Lots of projects written in C++ and many programmer who knows the language. And that's exactly why it is difficult to change.

When there are new features added to the language, it takes time to adjust because the old code isn't getting converted by itself, and the devs need to learn and get used to the new features.

(If you can afford to teach your team new features of C++, you can as well teach your team Rust.)

With C++ I can use Qt to make a GUI app that builds and runs on macOS, Linux, and Windows. Is there anything even close to that for Rust?

There’s egui [0] [1] which, being immediate mode, simplifies state management quite a bit. Runs on Mac, Linux, Windows, Web, and mobile.

[0] https://github.com/emilk/egui

[1] https://www.egui.rs/

The saving grace of C++ is that 80% of my complaints are really about the standard library rather than the language itself. I can replace the standard library with something else more consistent and modern without regard for legacy compatibility, and many people do.

Most of the rest of my complaints could be addressed by jettisoning backward compatibility and switching to more sensible defaults. I realize this will never happen.

C++ still has some unique strengths, particularly around metaprogramming compared to other popular systems languages. It also is pretty good at allowing you to build safe and efficient abstractions around some ugly edge cases that are unavoidable in systems programming. Languages like Rust are a bit too restrictive to handle some of these cases gracefully.

The crucial difference isn't technology, as others have described Rust's technology is actually an option for C++ though NIH means the committee will prefer anything else. The real difference is cultural.

The difference in API shapes in their respective standard libraries is because of culture not technology. Easy to see example: In C++ the two fundamental sort functions are named sort and stable_sort. In Rust those same two sorts are named sort_unstable and sort, a subtle but crucial safer choice. Or compare C++ vector::pop_back against Rust Vec::pop

Based on Hyrum's Law (since they preserve backward compatibility), any line of "modern" C++ code is also basically just C code. There's no way around this. I don't think there will ever be a point where C++ is so safe and rigid that it feels comfortable to write in without thinking of the 100s different ways the languages screws you over.

They love to say C++ is for everyone but it is clearly not. Only wizards and nerds burdened by sunk cost fallacy is willingly writing these modern C++ code. I personally just use C++ as a "nicer" C.

Absolutely spot on in my opinion.

Also things often just don’t compose well. For example if you have a nested class that you want to use in an unordered_set in its parent class then you just can’t do it because you can’t put the std::hash specialization anywhere legal. It’s just two parts of the language which are totally valid on their own but don’t work together. Stuff like this is such a common problem in c++ that it drives me nuts

>For example if you have a nested class that you want to use in an unordered_set in its parent class then you just can’t do it because you can’t put the std::hash specialization anywhere legal.

This is not true. From within your parent class you use an explicit hashing callable, and then from outside of the parent class you can go back to using the default std::hash.

The result looks like this:

    struct Foo {
      struct Bar {};
      struct BarHasher {
        std::size_t operator ()(const Bar&) const noexcept;
      };
      std::unordered_set<Bar, BarHasher> bar_set;
    };

    namespace std {
      template<>
      struct hash<Foo::Bar> {
        std::size_t operator()(const Foo::Bar& b) const noexcept {
          return Foo::BarHasher()(b);
        }
      };
    }

The std::hash specialization at the end is legal and allows other users of Foo::Bar to use std::unordered_set<Foo::Bar> without needing the explicit BarHasher.

The example you mentioned here suffers from a design program, not a language problem.

>> The committee are really letting the vision of a good C++ down by refusing to break backwards compatibility to fix core problems

IIUC this is what Profiles are. It’s an opt in source file method to ban certain misfeatures and require certain other safe features.

Safety profiles don't exist and there are so many issues with them that it's unlikely they will ever get added to the language. For example, you mention how it's a method applied to a source file, but C++ doesn't have the concept of a source file, it only knows about translation units.

But then the problem becomes where exactly do you opt-in to this feature? If you do it in a header file then this can result in a function being compiled with the safety profile turned on in one translation unit and then that exact same function is compiled without that safety profile in another translation unit... which ironically results in one of the most dangerous possible outcomes in C++, the so-called ODR violation.

If you don't allow safety-profiles to be turned on in header files, then you've now excluded a significant amount of code in the form of templates, constexpr and inline functions.

There's a new attempt at safety profiles. I'm not enough of an expert or read in enough on this proposal to answer your detailed questions, but there's a lot of words by Sutter and Stroustrop on the proposals:

Stroustrop, 2023 presentation: https://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2023/p2816r0...

Sutter, 2025 committee paper: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2025/p30...

Sutter, 2024 blog post: https://herbsutter.com/2024/03/11/safety-in-context/

I have to disagree, I find the language quite elegant if you primarily use modern features. It continues to improve with every new standardization. The old style of writing C++ should indeed die.

> I've used C++ for so long and I'm a good way into thinking that the language is just over

"no one goes there anymore it's too crowded"

Python isn't for people that care about performance, and Rust has still lots of work to do to provide any GUI, game engine or GPU framework as ergonomic as C++.

Backwards compatibility is what keeps C and C++ relevant, for better or worse.

All major languages value backwards compatibility to certain extent.

Python was lucky that after Python 2 to Python 3 mess, being the AI scripting language, has turned things around.

Really? I have found the UX stuff with egui to be super ergonomic. It's not "native", though. Trying to do macOS UX with it, I have found, generally sucks (curious if anyone knows of any good libraries). Then again C++ probably sucks for native macOS too. So I really don't think Rust is far off.

Yes really, because it is nothing like Qt, in IDE integration, tools for designers, or ecosystem from 3rd parties components.

C++ sucks for macOS, because it was never a first party language, unless using it via Objective-C++.

The only role of C++ in macOS is for drivers, LLVM and being the Metal Shader Language (C++14 with extensions).

Aren't apps, core system components et al built in C++? That was my impression.

Objective-C, the main difference to NeXTSTEP is that DriverKit changed from Objective-C into C++ with IO Kit, that uses Embedded C++ in a COM like approach.

In an homage to NeXTSTEP, the userspace version of IO Kit is named DriverKit.

There are some frameworks that might use C++ in their implementations, like Core Audio, however they are exposed to userspace as C APIs and Objective-C frameworks.

Hence why Apple nowadays mostly cares about LLVM, clang is good enough for their limited uses of C++.

https://developer.apple.com/xcode/cpp/

https://cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support.html

> Rust has still lots of work to do to provide any GUI, game engine or GPU framework as ergonomic as C++.

Slint, Bevy and no idea what a GPU framework is (even search engines are stumped; they keep recommending Framework laptops). Is it just CUDA?

Not gonna lie, what exactly is this mismatch of stuff? How to be C++ in 3001 steps?

Ergonomic as C++? That sounds as oxymoronic as "musical as nails on a chalkboard or a cat drowning in porridge." Having had the displeasure to read some relatively complex C++ codebase (SIMD json), has left me in deep appreciation of Java.

Unreal, Godot, and being on the console devkits are the minimum bar to match.

Followed by being integrated into RenderDoc, Pix, Instruments, NSights, for debugging purposes and instrumentation.

GPU frameworks is having matching CUDA, Open API, Metal Shading Language, ROCm feature parity, in IDE tooling, graphical debuggers, industry and academic support.

Having a seat at the table when Khronos and its partners are discussing the next GPU standards, so far only C, C++ and most recently Python, have a seat allocated.

Well according to your definition only one language could have ever fit the description.

It had to have a commercial game engine: so C++ or C#. It had to have cross platform GUI with Qt features - so C++, maybe Delphi. And it had to have seat at GPU standards so C, C++ and Python.

Forget Rust. C doesn't fit your criteria. Or Java. Or C#...

By cherry picking your criteria you can create an argument that pre selects one language.

There are several commercial game engines that were C before being C++, same applies to industry standards in the graphics and games industry.

Console devkits included.

Also the fact that C89 (minus one or two things) is a subset of C++ is still a reality that many studios take advantage of.

Java is indeed not used at all in the commercial games industry, unless the authors only focus on desktop or Android.

There is a reason why the very first thing Microsoft did after Mojang's acquisitions was to rewrite Minecraft into C++ for mobile platform and game consoles. They only don't get rid of Java version due to the modding community.

C# is only used thanks to Unity and even that is powered via C++ engine, and a compiler that translates MSIL bytecode into C++.

Yes, Rust still has a lot to catch up in this GUI and games industry.

On VFX, it isn't even part of the reference platform for the industry,

https://vfxplatform.com/

> Slint

Where is its equivalent of QGraphicsView? Or QTextDocument?

And Slint is probably more mature than any other pure Rust GUI. They, as of now, are little more than toys.

Look, I enjoy Rust as well, but be realist.

Or Qt Design Studio for that matter, and integration with designer tools.

> Where is its equivalent of QGraphicsView

I wasn't aware having feature parity with <INSERT FRAMEWORK FOR INSERT LANGUAGE> was necessary for language to beat C++. I could have sworn Java did it without half of those.

Ultimately it depends what you want to do? Cross platform GUI or winning pointless debates.

If you really want cross platform GUI you pretty much have to use Web based UI. Because Apple is extremely hostile to anything that tries to be native on its platform.

Not on desktop, it didn't.

IDEs are the only surviving Java desktop applications, and a few outliers like Bitwig DAW.

It didn't except for programs that did?

Well by that measure neither did C/C++. Only few survivors in the deluge of Electron apps.

Chrome and Firefox also use JavaScript/CSS for their GUI.

Very little signal to noise in your post.

It's widely used and you can do so effectively if you need it as know what you're doing.

On the bright side, any sufficiently motivated team can fork the language to try out ideas like yours.

Perhaps a better language could even get some traction without major corporate sponsorship. I think (?) rust and zig are examples of that.

> Perhaps a better language could even get some traction without major corporate sponsorship. I think (?) rust and zig are examples of that.

Rust might not count depending on whether you count Mozilla's sponsorship a major corporate sponsorship.

I just don't see a reason to use c++ anymore when rust does quite literally, everything better. For prototyping, hacking, firmware and native interfacing though? c++ any time of the day.

> quite literally, everything better

Like retained mode GUIs, games, intrusive containers or anything that can't be trivially represented by a tree of unique_/shared_ptr?

kinda don't get me wrong c++ is useful, however, rust is a platform language and should be used as such, like c++, but much further than that.

modern games are almost never made in a native language, but rather on a language on top of it, be it squirle, lua, blueprints, c#, wasm, javascript, state trees, binary trees, decision trees...

No one got you wrong ... you claimed that you couldn't see any reason to continue to use C++. That was a lie.

Writing cross-platform code between CPU and GPU, a very common occurrence, is certainly one reason to use C++.

gpu-rs (hopefully) will do it better including all the sub-projects around it.

> rust does quite literally, everything better

> (hopefully) will do it better

So, not quite literally everything

work in progress, relatively new language.

"rust does quite literally, everything better"

Be honest.

as a language, yes, the eco-system is still young.

You wrote "I just don't see a reason to use c++ anymore when rust does quite literally, everything better." -- there are numerous obvious reasons to continue to use C++, including its mature ecosystem, and other reasons have been pointed out.

You have been called out for dishonesty. Stop lying. I won't respond again.

"For prototyping, hacking, firmware and native interfacing though? c++ any time of the day." - literally gave reasons to continue to use c++.

I just don't see a reason to use c++ anymore (as a language).

There happy? Point being if I am starting a project, it's going to be rust because it's just plain better as long as it's something I actually care about and isn't related to breaking things or leveraging the fact that c++ is worse (in a good way) or I am already working with c++.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com