131–140 of 929 posts
are the rumors true, that much of Azure was really bolted-together Ubuntu things.. has that changed, aside from the reality of web-facing service pages growing by the thousands themselves...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
carbon, and the newly announced alpha stage efforts called cppfront, can potentially act as a "typescript" for c++, new compiler can enforce memory safety at an upper layer before they're converted to c++, maybe there is hope for c/c++ code for years to come as long as they keep fixing issues along the way.
Having written enough Rust code, I could bet that it won't be an easy task to rewrite C/C++ code with a borrow checked language. You just need to write code differently for this approach to work.
> For the sake of security and reliability. I just read a few C++ vs Rust comparisons online yesterday and didn't see anything about a significant difference in security or reliability. Mind you the articles weren't very technical. How is Rust so much more secure and reliable than *modern* C++?
I'd pick Rust over "modern" C++ just because I don't have to deal with 15 compilers, 15 IDEs, 15 build systems, decades of language experiments, kind of compiler-flags driven development
Quoted post unavailable.
Of all the people to nitpick on that (and it is indeed a ridiculous nitpick), this is not one of them.
Microsoft is no stranger to C-suite fads in software development. Back in the 90s each lasted about 2 years. The constant has always been that bugs have never had any detectable effect on company revenues.
In fact, until LLVM is replaced, C++ will probably be the language of choice for new languages. Even `rustc` requires a C++ bootstrap for that purpose.
There are also other important C++ and C libraries that will continue to mean C and C++ may be better choices than Rust in certain cases.
And don't get me started on embedded.
Also, that doesn't even matter when the purpose is a hobby project (such as mine) where the programmer has no interest in Rust (such as me).
I like how Trevor Jim put it [1] better:
> If you decide to write your project in C/C++ you must have a plan for handling the inevitable memory corruption in advance. Anything else is malpractice.
This is possible to do. I've released a non-trivial program that has had no known memory bugs ever since 1.0 on 2018-10-26. It is written in C. And I challenge anyone to find one in any release since then. You might find one, but I think it will be tough.
In other words, it's possible to put C and C++ on the same footing as Rust when it comes to memory bugs; after all, even Rust is not perfect there.
Yes, it takes more effort. A lot more effort. For my hobby projects, that works fine because I'd rather work in C with the extra effort than in Rust.
Oh, and it's possible to make C as good as Rust: I've got macros to do automatic bounds checking. I've got RAII and stack traces. I've got structured concurrency, which will give the same capabilities as the Rust borrow checker if you adjust your coding style. And all this in portable C11.
So no, Rust is not the end-all be-all of languages. Sorry.
Rant about absolutist opinion over.
But seriously, use Rust if it's available for your target platforms, and you have no other preference.
[1]: http://trevorjim.com/using-an-unsafe-language-is-a-design-fl...
The volume of existing C, C++, Objective-C, and C# code is phenomenal. Even if this strategy is generally adopted there will continue to be lots of this legacy code for many years to come. In particular there will continue to be such legacy code right up until 2038 at least.
carbon, and the newly announced alpha stage efforts called cppfront, can potentially act as a "typescript" for c++, new compiler can enforce memory safety at an upper layer before they're converted to c++, maybe there is hope for c/c++ code for years to come as long as they keep fixing issues along the way.
I think this title could be misinterpreted. There is a difference between Mark Russinovich saying this, as a personal opinion, and Mark Russinovich, Azure CTO, saying this as a company policy/directive. This tweet does not indicate that it's from him in his official capacity as Azure CTO.
I don't want to sound too girle or fanboyish but there is no other way to say it so I'll say it (hopefully he won't read this)- Mark Russinovich transcends titles and if he's said something about technology, it's probably 99.999% true. Also, RITF, I love Rust but remember zig exists so chill I also want to say one thing-- sometimes it's not so easy to just decide to write a project and say okay let me write this in R…
I don’t feel that his opinion is all-encompassing. If Rust is being used in the name of security and reliability, then C/C++ should remain king of game development, where those two aren’t as important.
Have you tried working with Bevy at all? It's very good: https://bevyengine.org/learn/book/getting-started/ecs/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If by "slip through", you mean "warns you about by default", then yes it lets it slip through. clang++ -std=c++17 test.cc a.cc:7:29: warning: object backing the pointer will be destroyed at the end of the full-expression [-Wdangling-gsl] std::string_view sv = s + "World\n"; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ In any case, I think the philosophical differences between C++ and Rust are well understood, and the different views of the cost/be…
In a large codebase with many warnings (incl from dependencies which you might not have control over), the difference between a compiler warning and hard error is significant.
clang++ test.cc -std=c++17 -Werror=dangling-gsl.
test.cc:7:29: error: object backing the pointer will be
destroyed at the end of the full-expression [-Werror,-
Wdangling-gsl]
std::string_view sv = s + "World\n";
^~~~~~~~~~~~~
I do think Rust has lots to offer, but i think the eternal argument here about what the compiler lets you do vs not is not likely to be a winning one with the C++ developers you see who don't want to move over.
The C/C++ people hate it when you call it C/C++.
That's a fairly recent thing that some people do as a kind of virtue signaling. The "C/C++ Users Journal" was a very popular publication and no one took issue with its name. Nor do people take issue with Dr. Dobbs which has a "C/C++" section with articles from highly influential members of the C/C++ community. C++ is a complex language, so people invent ways to show how dedicated they are to it, and nowadays that mea…
You come up with examples that are over 30 years old.