21–30 of 56 posts
Maybe someday it'll be rust, but if so that day isn't this year or next. Plenty of time to pick it up for your next job.
The key to any of embedded, system, or low-level programming is as much about learning how the computer actually works to a reasonable degree. You are not programming to an abstract computation model. You are moving bits and bytes around and generating assembly code and talking to the machine at quite a low-level . So while Rust and C++ are higher-level languages with all kinds of nice features to be safer, concise,…
cpp feels better to me now, but that could easily change.
rust-analyzer is a good experience, and cpp is not exactly fast, just faster.
It offers the same system programming capabilities as C but makes it much easier to write correct programs.
(If Rust is the “better C++”, then Zig is the “better C”).
The key to any of embedded, system, or low-level programming is as much about learning how the computer actually works to a reasonable degree. You are not programming to an abstract computation model. You are moving bits and bytes around and generating assembly code and talking to the machine at quite a low-level . So while Rust and C++ are higher-level languages with all kinds of nice features to be safer, concise,…
passing structs to functions is probably the way, but a struct with functions works too.
C is such a glorious language to competently develop software in, UB be damned.
Learn enough C to encounter the pain points C++ & Rust are trying to solve. C is simple, but not easy. Then learn enough Rust to be productive. Then learn enough C++ to interact with the enormous amounts of existing C++ code. Once you know a bit of all 3, decide where to focus based on the work you're trying to do. Rust is the easiest, but least widely supported. C is necessary either way, unless you're working for M…
> C is simple, but not easy. I think I know what you're trying to say, but unfortunately C is anything but simple. The semantics are riddled with surprises of all kinds. It's unlikely the average C programmer has never written a program with undefined behavior, for example.
C is the best choice to learn systems programming. C is the simplest of C, C++, or Rust and most other languages have C interop or foreign function interface. First learn C and then you can learn Rust or C++ if needed. The concepts you learn in C programming will help you to better understand the more advanced concepts used in Rust or C++. Recommended first book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_C_Programming_Langua…
The rust programmers that learned C first always have very elegant solutions and have the least issues in their unsafe blocks.
C to learn how memory works and how to manage resources, then Rust to understand how to use a higher level systems language for more productivity in places where it helps.
I work as a C++ dev and there are jobs in it, but unless you are trying to work a C++ job, the other two are wayyy better.
Learn enough C to encounter the pain points C++ & Rust are trying to solve. C is simple, but not easy. Then learn enough Rust to be productive. Then learn enough C++ to interact with the enormous amounts of existing C++ code. Once you know a bit of all 3, decide where to focus based on the work you're trying to do. Rust is the easiest, but least widely supported. C is necessary either way, unless you're working for M…
> C is simple, but not easy. I think I know what you're trying to say, but unfortunately C is anything but simple. The semantics are riddled with surprises of all kinds. It's unlikely the average C programmer has never written a program with undefined behavior, for example.
Rust hurts when you're learning it. C hurts when you're trying to debug your program.
If you've never written low level code before, I wouldn't start with rust. Zig or C are both much better options when getting started. But learning rust eventually will make you a better programmer.