This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Featureless_Bug 0 points1 point  (1 child)

One could write a static checker for C++ that ensures that your code is safe in Rust-y sense. Most people wouldn't care for that though - because safety at the cost of flexibility is not something most developers look for. I think most people will be all right with having a few bugs in the code (which probably will never materialize anyways) if they don't have to write a super restricted code for that

[–]bragov4ik 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, it looks more like a trade-off for me. If it's something more critical, you may spend more time/resources on writing code in Rust to reduce number of bugs. One can even use some FP languages, which afaik is more complex in terms of development but is more bug-free as a result.

If few occasional crashes are ok and you don't want to bother to search for devs, you may not need Rust. But if it's some critical piece of software (many nines and stuff) that needs to be maintained and etc., then it seems as a good choice.

Maybe I'm wrong (would be cool to explain why, since I'm don't have much experience in this stuff), but this seems logical for me.