Earlier quoted context omitted.
The recommendation is qualified for typical apps that do not have extreme performance or scale requirements. They use Java for many, many things. C++ is still indicated for systems that are optimizing for performance and scalability characteristics, since it intrinsically requires a lot of "unsafe" constructs.
> C++ is still indicated for systems that are optimizing for performance The only evidence I've seen for this is that people with a vested interest in my believing this keep saying it is true. That's the exact same evidence I have for Trump having triumphed in Iran. Do better if you want me to believe you. > since it intrinsically requires a lot of "unsafe" constructs. This is an excellent reason to choose Rust. The…
The problem is that it actually sucks for dealing with the encapsulated parts. The reason everyone loves Rust is because they can just import a package where somebody else did the hard part for them and not worry their pretty little brains about a thing, getting high performance with minimal concern. That is a valid advantage, and that does make more mundane usage of the language safer. But it does not make the unsafe parts safer. There is every reason for having unsafe-oriented languages with ergonomics that actually make working with unsafe code more reliable too. The annoying thing about Rust is that 90% of its users are religious dogmatists who insist that Rust is the only valid language rather than accepting different languages can have different advantages, and moreover that 90% is basically the 90% who are benefitting from Rust while not being the ones who have to write unsafe code themselves.