It's time to halt starting any new projects in C/C++

Post by School-Cotton » Tue, Sep 20, 2022, 1:04 PM UTC

jjk166 wrote: post #625

School-Cotton wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cut out the words “statistically speaking”, which entirely change the meaning.

In what way does it change the meaning? As I read it, "statistically speaking" is just being used as a parenthetical phrase to qualify that they're not trying to argue literally every rust programmer is superior to literally every c++ programmer, and can be safely omitted so long as no one tries to make some dumb argument like "well I've met one bad rust programmer before" or "so and so is a great programmer and they…

Post by auggierose » Tue, Sep 20, 2022, 1:08 PM UTC

krona wrote: post #578

slashdev wrote: post #549

I'm just a programmer who's been doing this for 20 years. I don't have the credentials of Mark, who is a legend. But I fully agree with him. There will be specific exceptions, but if you have the choice between Rust and C++ you would be making a big mistake to not choose Rust. The language is simpler, cleaner, safer, and more enjoyable to work with. The build tools are far more pleasant. The IDE experience is compara…

> The language is simpler, cleaner, safer, and more enjoyable to work with. I was a Rust v1 contributor. I have great hopes for the language as a replacement for c in systems engineering. However, I much prefer C++ 20 for the kind of work I do (scientific computing). Rust isn't a competitor to C++ in that arena, in my humble opinion. > Programmers currently using Rust are superior to programmers using C++, statistica…

Post by jamincan » Tue, Sep 20, 2022, 1:11 PM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #555

Ygg2 wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bold claim (since both languages are Turing complete). I presume you meant safe Rust? But that's kinda the point. If something is memory tricky it is supposed to go into unsafe so you can make a safe abstraction around it. Unless you meant actually all of Rust. In that case, please share what's inexpressible in Rust.

No. I mean that there is a great deal C++ can capture and present in a library that cannot be expressed in Rust. Much of this will never be in Rust because of this or that early choice of direction. At the most basic level, in Rust you cannot overload operators. You have no opportunity at all to code a move constructor. I could list off others all day long, but you probably would not understand most. Then there are t…

Post by zozbot234 » Tue, Sep 20, 2022, 1:15 PM UTC

aaron_h wrote: post #632

How good is rust at using existing C/C++ libraries? There’s so many of them for very useful low-level functionality, especially when programming against the Win32 API (which is written in C/C++ itself). Could I write a Windows kernel driver in rust? I also can’t ignore the fact that Mozilla has been in serious decline as an organization in recent years. I worry about rust’s long-term trajectory as their support of th…

Post by jcelerier » Tue, Sep 20, 2022, 1:16 PM UTC

kevincox wrote: post #547

Xcelerate wrote: post #494

I’ll controversially go a step further and say we need to even begin requiring this via regulation for certain applications, at least for those that involve the personal or financial data of customers. From working with security at a large tech company, it’s abundantly clear that C/C++ should not ever be used for processing sensitive information (it’s fine to keep around for high performance computing or processing n…

In not sure we need to regulate for or against specific languages but we absolutely need to hold companies more accountable for their cybersecurity. Once meaningful fines for data leaks and compromises start raining down the market will quickly shift to safer technologies.