I note that there are no arguments that C/C++ is better than Rust, except that it has been used for longer (and thus has more tools & knowhow around it).
There's no C/C++. They are entirely different languages (even if C is supposed to be a subset).
Not exactly suitable for mission critical systems. The fact that they are used for that is more due to the fact that they can interface with hardware at a fairly low level and the amount of engineers with C (and nowadays, C++) knowledge.
The 'formal' standard doesn't help you much when there's so much undefined behavior.
Tool availability is a fair point.
I think the OP is trying to say that both C and C++ have international standards.
> Not exactly suitable for mission critical systems. The fact that they are used for that is more due to the fact that they can interface with hardware at a fairly low level and the amount of engineers with C (and nowadays, C++) knowledge.
And highly deterministic behaviors, crucial in real time systems. But I think Rust is trying to provide those guarantees too.
If Rust had a formal standard, and had the tool ecosystem, then I could see it being an interesting possibility for critical systems, certainly for the same places that Java + RTSJ would be appropriate. I won't be the first one to try and push a Rust-powered device through regulatory approval though.
Forgot about that, a very good point.
C++ is a subset of C, not the other way around.
> the fact that they can interface with hardware at a fairly low level
That's certainly one reason. Others include raw performance (think real-time safety-critical applications), no funny abstractions, tighter memory footprint, more flexibility, etc.
> and the amount of engineers with C (and nowadays, C++)
While I believe there are a number of C++ engineers out there, I'd wager that the number of competent C language engineers has dwindled over the years. Sure, everyone learns some C, but to know it well enough to write embedded real-time safety-critical systems is a whole different game. (not to mention the number of Java engineers has greatly outpaced even C++ engineers, thanks to University teaching Java, Android's dominance, and the lower barrier to entry).
> The 'formal' standard doesn't help you much when there's so much undefined behavior.
The formal standard defines what is undefined. Your safety-critical code shouldn't rely on some compiler-specific quirks or some magical code, but rather it should stay within the bounds of well-defined behavior.
I can't see how this statement could possibly be true.
> no funny abstractions
Really? Maybe I suck at C++, but I can't meaningfully reason about template-heavy code. Not about the run-time performance, nor resource consumption. STL and Boost are beyond funny if you ask me.
> The formal standard defines what is undefined. Your safety-critical code shouldn't rely on some compiler-specific quirks or some magical code, but rather it should stay within the bounds of well-defined behavior.
Agreed. But take a look at the specification and you'll be amazed on just how much stuff is left for the actual implementation to figure out.
Which is why the coding standard for a critical project will disallow the use of things that can lead to undefined behavior.
This is not true, the two languages have diverged: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibility_of_C_and_C%2B%2B
The way Qt does is actually quite pleasant to work with, but they avoid most language features and roll their own (QObject, I'm looking at you), even including their own preprocessor.
It's sad they don't teach C++ properly any more. The stuff I see leaking out onto Stack Overflow from courses is shamefully bad.
Rust inherently guarantees static memory safety in many situations, on the other hand.
C++ is impossible to validate formally.
[1] http://fsl.cs.illinois.edu/index.php/An_Executable_Formal_Se...
Honestly I see Rust as (potentially, down the road) being a better, less verbose Ada than a better C++ or Java. You tend to write Rust code much like you would an Ada or VHDL program.
I ask because I'm in the process of spec'ing out a safety critical medical device, and JamaicaVM is the lead candidate at the moment.