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

31–40 of 89 posts

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

#31

Post by outworlder »

vowelless wrote: post #13
outworlder wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

Forgot about that, a very good point.

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

#32

Post by galonk »

putzdown wrote: post #26

It's true that C/C++ will never die. Not everyone loves them, but they're both good languages and they both have their place. Part of that place is due to mere tradition, mere established-ness, but part of it is real merit in terms of speed and directness. It's true that Rust aficionados tend to come across as religious zealots. Most "up and coming" language advocates do. This is a case where zealotry is understandab…

Or documentation.

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

#33

Post by [deleted] »

Alupis wrote: post #28
steveklabnik wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> C++ is a subset of C, not the other way around. This is not true, the two languages have diverged: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibility_of_C_and_C%2B%2B

You are right, they have diverged. However my initial statement was/is true, as C++ started as a subset of C (even though the two are totally incompatible for all non-trivial programs today).

[deleted]

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

#34

Post by dorolow »

Alupis wrote: post #28
steveklabnik wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> C++ is a subset of C, not the other way around. This is not true, the two languages have diverged: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibility_of_C_and_C%2B%2B

You are right, they have diverged. However my initial statement was/is true, as C++ started as a subset of C (even though the two are totally incompatible for all non-trivial programs today).

No it's not. You're confusing superset and subset.

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

#36

Post by astrodust »

mkpankov wrote: post #17

Note the translation is done by a company which makes C++ static analyzer for a living. This might be the case of conflict of interest and/or heavy bias.

It also means they know what they're talking about.

Many of the points are valid, but it's important to remember Rust is not even released. Java 1, Ruby 1, Perl 1, Python 1 were all pretty terrible compared to their current manifestations.

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

#37

Post by astrodust »

vowelless wrote: post #15
s_baby wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

C++ gives you more than enough rope to hang yourself. Like a chainsaw, it's very powerful, but also extremely dangerous.

It's sad they don't teach C++ properly any more. The stuff I see leaking out onto Stack Overflow from courses is shamefully bad.

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

#38

Post by nercury »

steveklabnik wrote: post #12

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 o…

Thanks for writing this, can't be upvoted enough!

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

#39

Post by [deleted] »

putzdown wrote: post #26

It's true that C/C++ will never die. Not everyone loves them, but they're both good languages and they both have their place. Part of that place is due to mere tradition, mere established-ness, but part of it is real merit in terms of speed and directness. It's true that Rust aficionados tend to come across as religious zealots. Most "up and coming" language advocates do. This is a case where zealotry is understandab…

[deleted]

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

#40

Post by igouy »

plosi wrote: post #16
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

Incidentally, those are the upper and lower quartiles not error bars.
Post reply on HN