Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Criticizing the Rust Language, and Why C/C++ Will Never Die

viva64.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 89 posts

Re: Criticizing the Rust Language, and Why C/C++ Will Never Die

#11

Post by vonmoltke »

teacup50 wrote: post #5
[deleted] wrote: post #3

[deleted]

I've made an honest effort with C++ >= C++11. The language has improved -- lots -- but there's just no getting around the fact that: - Most of the improvements hellaciously leverage the hideous template system, and - Actually writing template-leveraging libraries is an exercise in pain, repetition, and insanely slow compile times. C++ won't be a "Rust-killer" (insert any other modern low-level type parameterized syst…

C++ also suffers from having become, essentially, three separate languages rolled into one:

- "C with classes" that adds basic object-oriented features to C

- A full-featured, compiled OO language similar to Java

- A high-level language capable of generating low-level code at compile time (template metaprogramming)

I don't think a person can become adept at all three simultaneously without essentially devoting themselves exclusively to C++. The language would be better served by concentrating on the middle. Roll the first one into the C standard and spin the third off into a separate standard, thus creating a low level -> high level continuum.

Re: Criticizing the Rust Language, and Why C/C++ Will Never Die

#12

Post by steveklabnik »

I left a comment on Reddit that I'll adapt here. It's really intended at the Rust community specifically, but I think the message is still worthwhile anyway:

Not everyone is going to like Rust. That's totally okay.

I've seen language communities, especially newer ones where people are particularly passionate, essentially turn into... this is a bit strong, but mini-cults. Where if you don't like the language, you're obviously an illliterate pleb who needs to learn how to code. This ends up creating an insular, backwards, dangerous culture. I'd prefer a culture of "we're doing cool stuff, I hope you like it, but reasonable people may not, and that's okay."

I'm not really speaking about any particular language here, please don't try to 'figure out who I'm talking about' or something.

While it's true that the author may have only breifly tried Rust, and not tried to understand design choices, this is going to be the first of many, many blog posts like this as we grow after 1.0. The vast, vast majority of programmers haven't even tried Rust yet. Flamebait blog post titles are a standby of today's programmer culture. We shouldn't get too hung up on it, and instead, focus on doing cool stuff with the people who do get it.

http://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/35pn5a/criticizing_the...

Re: Criticizing the Rust Language, and Why C/C++ Will Never Die

#13

Post by vowelless »

outworlder wrote: post #9
lambdaelite wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That C/C++ have a formal standard and have an entire tool ecosystem is a huge advantage over Rust for mission critical and safety critical areas (not that Rust would be used for SC applications).

> "is a huge advantage over Rust for mission critical and safety critical areas" There's no C/C++. They are entirely different languages (even if C is supposed to be a subset). Not exactly suitable for mission critical systems. The fact that they are used for that is more due to the fact that they can interface with hardware at a fairly low level and the amount of engineers with C (and nowadays, C++) knowledge. The '…

> There's no C/C++. They are entirely different languages (even if C is supposed to be a subset).

I think the OP is trying to say that both C and C++ have international standards.

> Not exactly suitable for mission critical systems. The fact that they are used for that is more due to the fact that they can interface with hardware at a fairly low level and the amount of engineers with C (and nowadays, C++) knowledge.

And highly deterministic behaviors, crucial in real time systems. But I think Rust is trying to provide those guarantees too.

Re: Criticizing the Rust Language, and Why C/C++ Will Never Die

#14

Post by mkpankov »

lambdaelite wrote: post #7
jononor wrote: post #4

I note that there are no arguments that C/C++ is better than Rust, except that it has been used for longer (and thus has more tools & knowhow around it).

That C/C++ have a formal standard and have an entire tool ecosystem is a huge advantage over Rust for mission critical and safety critical areas (not that Rust would be used for SC applications).

C++ is impossible to validate formally.

Rust inherently guarantees static memory safety in many situations, on the other hand.

Re: Criticizing the Rust Language, and Why C/C++ Will Never Die

#15

Post by vowelless »

s_baby wrote: post #10
lambdaelite wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That C/C++ have a formal standard and have an entire tool ecosystem is a huge advantage over Rust for mission critical and safety critical areas (not that Rust would be used for SC applications).

A formal standard that has undefined behavior and is apparently difficult to implement a compiler for. It seems C++ is popular for mission critical software despite its standards.

You have to be a little smart about C++. Avoid using anything dynamic (including exceptions, dynamic casting, etc).

Re: Criticizing the Rust Language, and Why C/C++ Will Never Die

#16

Post by plosi »

oldmanjay wrote: post #8

I get that this is a translation but it's very poorly written even considering that. lots of repetitive conclusion jumping in what I can only assume is an attempt to baffle the reader into uncritically accepting what appears to be a largely unsupported opinion. the only evidence the post seems to offer is that rust is slow because it showed up 5th in a set of microbenchmarks. everything else is rhetorical garbage, fr…

Additionally, even the microbenchmark barely supports it based upon the size of the error bars

Re: Criticizing the Rust Language, and Why C/C++ Will Never Die

#18

Post by lambdaelite »

mkpankov wrote: post #14
lambdaelite wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That C/C++ have a formal standard and have an entire tool ecosystem is a huge advantage over Rust for mission critical and safety critical areas (not that Rust would be used for SC applications).

C++ is impossible to validate formally. Rust inherently guarantees static memory safety in many situations, on the other hand.

Right, which is why a subset of C or C++ (like MISRA) is used for critical applications.
Post reply on HN