• marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      6 months ago

      All the noise I see is from people insisting that Rust developers are noisy, and their favorite language is much better types-don’t-solve-bugs-undefined-behavior-is-fine-and-memory-errors-are-not-a-problem.

      Actual Rust developers have been silent for years.

      • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I once shared that I had a bad first experience with Rust and no less than four Rust developers arrived to inform me that I was either hallucinating, or bad at programming, or both.

        I haven’t had this much fun winding up a sensitive community since I shared how I really felt about Java Spring, in it’s heyday.

        • pooberbee (any)@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I suspect there are a lot of “Rust devs” that are little more than kool-aid drinkers. Common refrains are that Rust is the fastest language, most type-safe language, and most powerful language. Rust certainly seems to move the state of the art forward in some ways, but you can still write garbage code in it.

          I’ve worked with lots of different people in lots of different languages, and I think I’d rather good people in a bad language than the other way around by a mile.

      • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        6 months ago

        I tend to stick to interpreted languages so I can’t weigh in on the Rust vs. C++ debate, but I know that if you’re trying to make headway against a language as entrenched as C++ is you’ve got to get loud.

    • suy@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yes. There is already an answer with many votes saying so, but I’ll add myself to the list.

      I don’t have to like all the language, and not even all of the standard library. I learnt C++ with the Qt library, and I still do 99% of my development using Qt because it’s the kind of software that I like to write the most. I can choose the parts that I like the most about the full C++ ecosystem, like most people do (you would have to see how different game development is, for example).

      I’m also learning Rust, and I see nothing wrong with it. It’s just that I see C++ better for the kind of stuff that I need to write (at this time at least).

      • refalo@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        personally I just can’t get over the syntax to even try rust. to me it just looks terrible. I know not everybody agrees though. that and having even longer compile times and no mature gui framework

        • ScreaminOctopus@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          IMO the syntax is fine except for the borrow checker shit that just looks arcane. The fact that everything cargo drags in is statically linked really turns me off the language for anything serious. It’s really unfortunate because I’d otherwise put some time into learning it, but it seems like the rust foundation is fine with this (ridiculous IMO) workflow.

    • suy@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      Correct. Backwards compatibility is both its biggest asset and its bigger problem.

      In syntax alone, you can check what Herb Sutter is doing with cppfront. Specifically, the wiki page on the postfix operators is quite enlightening. It shows some interesting examples of how by making everything a postfix operator you drop the need of -> and the duality of pre/post increment and decrement operators.

  • JATtho@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    C++: you sure you want to do this? This will either: a) blow your foot off b) be too fast to be measured in micro-benchmarks.

    b. B. B. a. then B.

    You have chosen to simultaneously blow your arm off and be the fastest code thing on the planet. Congrats. Yes.

  • Vivendi@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    Seriously. Try publishing anything not written in Rust nowadays and you WILL get multiple “bUt baut mUh rUsT??? 1?1!! 11!1!” Comments.

  • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’m a D developer, this wouldn’t work for me. Hell, I can even in theory directly interact with C++ code from my language of choice, except I still haven’t. I have started to write a binding (and some nice D-style API) for Wasmtime, which is written in Rust.

  • corroded@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    6 months ago

    C++ is just as “safe” as Rust if you use modern language features (std::unique_ptr, for instance). I would argue that anyone who says Rust provides better memory safety than C++ most likely is not familiar with modern C++ and still sees the language as “C with classes.”

    • RustyWizard@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I would argue that anyone who says C++ provides a similar level of memory safety as rust hasn’t done serious development work in either language.

    • Ethan@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      As someone whose first language was C, I plan to never use C++ for anything more than programming an Arduino precisely because of the multitude of pointer types. A pointer should just be a pointer. Having five hundred different flavors of pointers is confusing as fuck.

      • Redkey@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        6 months ago

        That was my first take as well, coming back to C++ in recent years after a long hiatus. But once I really got into it I realized that those pointer types still exist (conceptually) in C, but they’re undeclared and mostly unmanaged by the compiler. The little bit of automagic management that does happen is hidden from the programmer.

        I feel like most of the complex overhead in modern C++ is actually just explaining in extra detail about what you think is happening. Where a C compiler would make your code work in any way possible, which may or may not be what you intended, a C++ compiler will kick out errors and let you know where you got it wrong. I think it may be a bit like JavaScript vs TypeScript: the issues were always there, we just introduced mechanisms to point them out.

        You’re also mostly free to use those C-style pointers in C++. It’s just generally considered bad practice.