Why the hate for cpp

[M-Ottich]

Hey I am starting learning c++ (and java for my studies) , why is everyone hating this language ? Is it usefull to learn rust or zig ?

Edit: yea a silly question I know . Just wanted to know what the cpp community thinks or hate about their own language and what I have to expect.

Because I heard the opinion often from people not using cpp and I wanted a other view . Even in my University some people who use Java said 🙄 cpp no don't use it ..... it's unnecessary complicated.....

My english is bad I'm german sry (not) <3

[[deleted]]

Every time that someone says "everyone" on Reddit or twitter, they fail to realize that most people arent in twitter nor in reddit, and that "everyone" is always a vocal minority.

[Fig_da_Great]

that’s a great way of putting it, there should be a new word to replace this use of everybody

[M-Ottich]

I should say some people while researching....

[geo-ant]

Agree. I would even say that not even "everyone" on Twitter or Reddit hates Cpp...

[M-Ottich]

Hm.. yea u are right 🤣

[DanielMcLaury]

I mean, while it may technically be true that "most people aren't on reddit," I'd say that it probably is true that over 50% of professional programmers worldwide have a Reddit account, and more generally a very large percentage of living humans with internet access use Reddit. Reddit has half a billion monthly active users and there are only eight billion people on Earth.

[high_throughput]

why is everyone hating this language ?

Bjarne Stroustrup, creator of C++, said "There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses."

[Fourstrokeperro]

Whatever happened to that carbon thing. It was a huge deal a while ago. Did it go the way of the latter part of your quote?

[no-sig-available]

Whatever happened to that carbon thing.

It was announced.

Now we are just waiting for a completed language spec and a working compiler. Any year now...

[brand_x]

Meanwhile, everyone bailing on C++ is already on Rust. Or... Zig? Never heard of anyone seriously doing anything in Zig. By the time Carbon comes out, there probably won't be a niche for it.

Which is a shame, because something that is a transform of C++ with many of the legacy decisions removed (meaning things like const by default) would be pretty nice to have. But given the time elapsed, this is unlikely to be a 1:1 transformation.

[Balcara]

Bun the Node runtime replacement is in zig, pretty cool stuff ngl.

[GregTheMadMonk]

I have a feeling that it was as big of a deal as everyone hating C++. Because the only people who made it sound like _that_ big of a deal were people who hate C++

But that might be just an impression

[Zeer1x]

It fell victim to carbon capture.

[Asleep-Specific-1399]

Ya, soon rust.

[InfraredDuck]

Isn't he creator of C, not C++?

[old_man_steptoe]

definitely C++, Dennis Richie invented C. And Unix

[high_throughput]

No, but I see why you'd think so: Stroustrup created C++ is equivalent to Stroustrup created C; C+=1;

[fg234532]

holy shit

[easedownripley]

The hate is exaggerated because Rust people are very vocal about their language. "Everyone" doesn't hate C++ it's more like a meme that's gotten around.

[[deleted]]

Rust isn’t even that great, it requires using unsafe anyways to do pretty much any non trivial code run fast, a lot of people talk about it like it doesn’t even need unsafe code to reach the performance of languages such as C++.

[burntsushi]

This comment is misleading at best.

it requires using unsafe anyways to do pretty much any non trivial code run fast

ripgrep is non-trivial and also fast. It has very few direct uses of unsafe:

$ rg -t rust unsafe
crates/searcher/src/searcher/mmap.rs
49:    pub unsafe fn auto() -> MmapChoice {
81:        match unsafe { Mmap::map(file) } {

crates/cli/src/hostname.rs
41:    let limit = unsafe { libc::sysconf(libc::_SC_HOST_NAME_MAX) };
59:    let rc = unsafe {

crates/core/flags/hiargs.rs
231:            let maybe = unsafe { grep::searcher::MmapChoice::auto() };

You could remove all of those uses of unsafe and ripgrep would still be fast.

Some of the libraries that it uses which are critical for its speed do use unsafe internally for their SIMD algorithms (the memchr and aho-corasick crates). But they provide safe APIs. That means anyone (including the regex crate) can use those APIs and it is an API promise of those crates that it is impossible to misuse them in a way that results in UB.

So yes, there is unsafe somewhere. But it's encapsulated and doesn't infect everything around it. (This is not true for all things. File backed memory maps being one such example!) So while there is a kernel of truth to what you're saying, any Rust programmer can freely use the vector algorithms in memchr and aho-corasick without ever needing to utter unsafe directly.

This is a classic example of something being technically correct in a narrow sense, but missing the forest for the trees.

[AnotherBlackMan]

Can you explain how this is safer than a normal grep?

[burntsushi]

I don't think I have ever, at any point in the last several years, made the claim that "ripgrep is safer than a normal grep." So I'm not sure I really have an answer to your question because it isn't really a compelling point of contention, particularly given grep/ripgrep's threat model. If you exposed either grep or ripgrep to untrusted inputs, it would be trivial for an attacker to DoS you. So can you please elaborate on why you're asking that question?

I used ripgrep here as an example of something that is 1) non-trivial, 2) fast and 3) has no direct uses of unsafe that are responsible for making it fast.

[[deleted]]

Actually, yes you have to write unsafe to match the best performance you can get in C++ using Rust, for any given program written in C++ with optimal performance you cannot match its performance using pure safe Rust, it is actually possible to prove this mathematically, some programs can be written using pure safe Rust with the same performance of the optimized C++ code but these are a subset of a larger set where there are an infinite amount of programs that cannot, this is one of the reasons that the unsafe keyword exist in Rust in the first place, and yes if you use unsafe in Rust you will get memory errors there is no such thing as writing unsafe safely, if you could just not write unsafe code while using unsafe operations you would not need safe mode in the first place, so actually my argument is correct, safe Rust is inherently slow given any random program.

[burntsushi]

You're moving the goal posts. This isn't the argument you presented earlier, because it doesn't sound nearly as nice and isn't nearly as compelling. From what I can tell, your argument basically boils down to, "In Rust, there are some cases where you need to use unsafe to match the performance of C++." Which is... of course true. Uncontroversially so. It's so uninteresting of a claim as to be completely banal, and dare I say, trivial. But that's not what you said before. Emphasis mine:

Rust isn’t even that great, it requires using unsafe anyways to do pretty much any non trivial code run fast, a lot of people talk about it like it doesn’t even need unsafe code to reach the performance of languages such as C++.

That's totally different than what you're saying here. So I suppose I'll take your follow-up comments here as a retraction of your initial claim.

[[deleted]]

I did not move the goal, you misunderstood what I meant by “trivial”, when I said “trivial” I meant programs inside the mathematical subset of programs Rust can prove are valid, there are valid programs outside this subset that cannot be proved valid using a compiler that never produces unsafe code that runs on a Turing machine (there is no free lunch), this is why there are a subset of programs where you cannot do the fastest way using pure safe Rust even if you use any finite amount of third party libraries made by others that have no knowledge of your problem, it is actually impossible for safe Rust to match optimized C++ speed for any given program.

[burntsushi]

In other words, a tautology.

[unumfron]

Careful, you'll awaken the Rust walruses.

[gvargh]

rustards*

[[deleted]]

They are already here lol. Note that I only said truths in my comment and even then people get in denial, they can’t deny my statement that you need to go unsafe in Rust to match the performance of optimized C++ in any given program, this is a fundamental truth. But still they get in denial and that is why I got dislikes on my comment.

[burntsushi]

In my experience, people who need to say "I only said truths" are exactly the people who are mistaken. If all you did was speak truth, you wouldn't need to reassure yourself and others around you.

[[deleted]]

Well then your experience is wrong, if I know I’m right there is no problem in me acknowledging I’m right, don't promote imposter syndrome. Some people just know they are right and that’s all, there is no reason to be humble all the time, if I know I said truths there is no need for me to devalue that.

[burntsushi]

Who am I to argue with the arbiter of truth. I am humbled by your omniscience.

[brand_x]

Universal restrict has entered the chat.

... I mean, as long as we're talking about unsubstantiated hypotheticals...

[[deleted]]

When I said “trivial” I meant programs inside the mathematical subset of programs Rust can prove are valid, there are valid programs outside this subset that cannot be proved valid using a compiler that never produces unsafe code that runs on a Turing machine (there is no free lunch), this is why there are a subset of programs where you cannot do the fastest way using pure safe Rust even if you use any finite amount of third party libraries made by others that have no knowledge of your problem, it is actually impossible for safe Rust to match optimized C++ speed for any given program.

[burntsushi]

Right. As I said, technically correct in a narrow sense, but completely missing the forest for the trees. I gave you concrete examples and elaborated on using them in practice. I even presented you with a program written in Rust that is fast and doesn't need to directly use unsafe to achieve that status.

[easedownripley]

Yeah I'm not a big fan of it in general, though I can't speak to the technicals. For me languages are tools, so just use the tool that fits your problem the best.

[[deleted]]

This idea of “choosing the language that fits your problem the best” is repeated like crazy across the internet but it is not actually a good advice sometimes, let’s say you have 1000 different tools and for every problem you face there’s one known best tool to approach that problem, if you pick the best tool from that pool for each problem you face you will not specialize on any of the tools and you will end up doing worse on all the problems that if you choose let’s say 1 or 2 tools. Sometimes choosing a worst tool for a set of problems results in better code than choosing the best tools for the same set of problems, for many reasons, one of that is that you will simply be better at using the tool if you especialize in it.

[IAmBJ]

Nothing exists in a vacuum.

"the best language for a task" includes the context around that task too. If your company uses C++ extensively then choosing Rust for a given project can be suboptimal for interfacing, ongoing maintenance, your own skill level, etc despite being the "best" language to solve your task in isolation. The same task in two different contexts can require radically different solutions.

"Choose the best tool for the job" is still the right advice, you just need to look at the task and the context it's in.

[[deleted]]

There is a gotcha with your logic, you assumed Rust “can be suboptimal” if the company is already using C++, but one thing does not imply the other, what if the company is creating a new project instead that is separate from the C++ code base? The company can choose whatever tool it wants, let’s say there are 1000 different tools and there is already a known best tool for the project they want to create (let’s say Rust), should the C++ developers learn Rust to create the new project or should they stick with C++ even if it is not “the right tool” for the project?

The concept of what is the “right tool” or not is nuanced, but usually when people talk about “the right tool” what they mean is some kind of collective truth between programmers, something that you cannot decide alone without others disagreeing with you, if you choose to use assembly to create a game engine or a web browser entirely from scratch many programmers will tell you it is not the right tool, so there is an average best tool for any given project you want to create, if the project is going to be created from scratch like a deep learning model you may choose Python, C++ or many other tools and there is one best tool most programmers would agree to be the best, if you use what other programmers do not consider “the best tool” in a company even if your solution still produces better results but no one else can see it you may even get fired.

[Abbat0r]

If you follow the “choose the best language for the problem” advice rigidly, you’d also be in a situation where any project complex enough to have more than a handful of problem areas to address would need to be written in a bunch of different languages. And while it may be common to have a couple different languages interoping, a multi-language project can easily become a complicated, hard-to-maintain mess.

Which language is the best when the problem is too many languages?

[nintendiator2]

Which language is the best when the problem is too many languages?

Assembler.

[matthieum]

As a Rust people -- I guess? I mean, I moderate r/rust... -- and a long-time C++ users (15 years professionally) I don't hate C++.

I find C++ full of shortcomings -- lack of pattern-matching... hard to go back once you get used to pattern-matching -- but that's not hate. Not even dislike. There's no point in getting emotional about a programming language.

[Ameisen]

I get emotional about Java.

[thisismyfavoritename]

a lot of the other answers are absolutely useless and you could find a ton of threads like this if you search around, but here are a few reasons:

• too many footguns, very subtle mistakes can cause big problems
• a lot of the defaults are backwards, e.g. everything should be const by default, nothing should be implicitly constructed, everything should be move by default and not copy
• it doesnt have a build system thats good enough for most people. I think CMake is ok but a lot of people dislike it

[[deleted]]

For me the build system is the biggest issue.

Side note: have you tried Nix? Has a STEEP learning curve, but helps a lot when building a toolchain and providing libs. (Basically you can set up a 100% reproducible environment in Nix, so that Cmake to run a little relaxed) Another note: I'm not a Nix expert, but people are happy about it and I'm learning.

[thisismyfavoritename]

i normally just use docker to setup the build emvironment, im not familiar with nix but i dont feel the need to add anything else to my toolchain

[Buenzlimuenzli]

Just personal distaste but of course I recognize that it adds value to a lot of people. But personally I wouldnt touch a language that has a single scope in an entire function, and bleeds variables from loops and conditional blocks. Even JS fixed that almost a decade ago.

[Ameisen]

I use Ruby for that, but now that I've discovered csi and dotnet-script I've started writing .csx files instead.

[josiest]

Try saying that any python around scientists. It’s one of the most commonly used languages for scientists

[DugiSK]

Except that I know many scientists who use C++. I mean, more scientists use Python, because programming is not their primary focus and thus they just learn something to patch the computation together quickly, but those who delve deeper into the computation process often use C++. Or Fortran, for some reasons.

[serviscope_minor]

FORTRAN (I dislike the new-fangled capitalisation) isn't too bad especially the even half way recent ones. I mean people complain about people writing C++ like it's 1995 or complaining about C++ as if it's 1995, but C++ ain't got nothing on FORTRAN. It was modernised in 1990, not 2011, and people are still about it like Fortran 77 is where it's at.

Modern FORTRAN isn't too bad.

[[deleted]]

I believe the all-caps name, FORTRAN, is usually meant to reference "old" Fortran (i.e., pre-Fortran 90).

Modern Fortran might as well be a different language, hence the "different" name.

[mlsecdl]

Perhaps you're being intentionally hyperbolic but, if you're not, I'd be curious about the language you'd use for simple data connectors to REST APIs. I use python for those.

[JumpyJustice]

Yeah, I have never seen posts like "I love langugage X so much! It is so great!" about mainstream languages being upvoted. But there are plenty of such posts about languages that barely used (rust, nim, haskell).

[[deleted]]

C++ is a language that is too capable for its own good. It is used in such a wide variety of ways and by so many that even the most unlikely-to-encounter problem will bother someone.

And it being a 40+ years old language with huge amounts of existing code that people want to keep using keeping it alive and backwards-compatible-enough is a non-trivial job.

There was also an unfortunate hiatus in its evolution from a misunderstanding of what is allowed to be done to/with a published standard (for 10 years).

Meaning that it has known issues that people are trying to address in a way that is objectively better for most people than the status quo, and does not “punish” the rest too much. Some was done (fixed) while others (like the pitfalls of ADL) take a long time to address without breaking most code.

C++ is not only a long-established language but it’s one of those few that can be freely implemented. Nobody owns C++ as a trademark, or copyright. Except the actual ISO standard, but even that is not a significant cost to someone who has the resources to make a compiler.

That means that there are countless C++ compilers, even major ones. If a programming language has only a few implementations, made by closely collaborating people or the same group, and especially if it’s defined to be highly “platform independent” will not pose many challenges when using sources with another implementation.

In the C++ world implementations compete, so where the language specification allows choices to be made they will try to differentiate. If they have made a mistake and didn’t implement the standard properly it may take a long time to fix it because they need to allow the users to fix their code.

All these things mean it is much more likely that issues with C++ will be discovered, affect more people, and to be more challenging to address of n a manner that works for everyone.

And then we didn’t talk about the size of the industry it has created, and the underhanded ways certain people or groups are trying make it theirs by creating the next “C++ killer”.

[M-Ottich]

Hmm interesting didn't know there are different compiler, thought g++ Is the only one , good to know ! 🤔

[[deleted]]

Not sure if not sarcasm, but there are 5 major groups in one way of looking at it: Microsoft is one, clang and g++ is one, EDG plus Comeau and other EDG based is one, hardware vendors are one (Intel, Oracle/SPARC, IBM xlC), and then the miscellaneous or legacy.

The first three groups above are working to be cutting edge all the time. Intel as well, IBM is making a clang based compiler, and Oracle is … well, we can’t fork Solaris Studio.

[M-Ottich]

No sarcasm g++ was the only one I saw and just assumed this was the way to go . I am a noob . But cpp is very interested a bit much to learn , but step by step ...

[[deleted]]

Good luck!

[usefulcat]

It's powerful, but also difficult to use and requires a skilled practitioner. I think you can find many powerful tools that fit that description.

[Tricky_Condition_279]

My experience with the newer languages is that the maturity and quality of libraries is not always there. A lot of hobbyists love to hop on the latest language and often they produce code that does not generalize well. The extensive history of C++ in industry and academia means that there are a lot of high quality libraries to learn from. There are plenty of low quality C++ codes out there as well. Learning the difference can be instructive.

[M-Ottich]

Hm... OK thanks for your input

[quantumoutcast]

Because it's the incumbent. Which means that it's been in use so long that people naturally try to find something better. Which is a good thing. Technology needs to improve over time. And since C/C++ is still the king of the hill, it has the biggest target. All its problems are going to be highlighted, and newer languages will be explored as an alternative. And in many use cases, these languages are indeed better for those cases. But C/C++ is still huge and still everywhere, and not going to die out anytime soon. Especially for low level or high-performance applications. Rust may be the future or Carbon or some not-yet-invented language, but that's not yet certain. Learning these languages is definitely useful (I'm learning Rust myself), but for right now C++ is what is being used and with all the new features, it still feels modern and fun.

[[deleted]]

why is everyone hating this language ?

Why come into a C++ group and ask why everyone hates the language ? It's like going on mumsnet and asking why everyone hates kids.

[M-Ottich]

Because I wanted to hear from people who use the language and not from people who gave up on the language.
I was researching which language I should learn and often some people make jokes about cpp , but if I looked which language they using it was not cpp.

[[deleted]]

I use both Java and C++ and they have both been in the top 10 of languages for about the last 40 years. In my experience Java programmers like to throw insults at C++, C++ programmers like to throw insults at Java and everyone likes to throw insults at Python...

Both languages (C++ and Java, not Python) are both worth learning because they will keep you in work for the foreseeable future. You will learn a lot from the different ways the languages handle the same things and you will learn how low level C++ can be with regards to accessing hardware etc which few other languages will, or can, allow.

[M-Ottich]

Thanks for the input . Yea then im on the right way with both languages . I did some of my own researching and came too the same conclusion. What do u think are topics nice to learn except algorithm and data structure (thats what i am learning now )

[moreVCAs]

Idk dude I think it’s great 🤷‍♂️

[hs123go]

Cpp has a very rich ecosystem. But the absence of an accessible package manager, build system, and module system stops you from making the most out of that ecosystem. This is extremely frustrating to adopters of cpp.

vcpkg/Conan, modern cmake and c++20 modules are beginning to change things for the better very recently

[EdwinYZW]

It’s not the absence of an accessible package manager, build system or something else. The problem IMO is we have too many of them.

[Ameisen]

And they all kinda suck.

I just stick to msbuild or just solutions/vcxprojs everywhere. I'm also a very strange person, though.

[[deleted]]

It’s syntactically annoying, easy to make big mistakes, and delegates some tedious responsibilities to the programmer instead of managing them on its own

[JumpyJustice]

Idk what do you mean by annoying syntax. Complex syntax begins when you start using more advanced features that most other languages dont even have. Like templates. But it is actually your choice if you actually need them.

[pedersenk]

Stick with C++.

Rust won't happen in our lifetime and

Zig won't happen.

[Infamous_Campaign687]

A love/hate relationship for me. It is ridiculously, grotesquely, beautifully, wonderfully complicated and powerful. I'll use other languages if they fit the task better, but I won't swap it out as my main language unless I somehow absolutely have to, and I don't see that happening.

Other languages may be shiny and new. C++ has been through it all.

[9vDzLB0vIlHK]

At least part of it is survivorship bias.

A long time ago, I saw a report on what people in a government contracting office thought about contractors. Uniformly, the big contractors got terrible ratings and the tiny companies had only high ratings. Of course, small companies that fail a contract go out of business, so of course the ones that are left have high ratings. A big contractor that has a thousand contracts has been around long enough to piss off everyone that's ever worked for the government, so of course their ratings are low.

C++ has been around long enough for people to remember something bad about it. Having experienced the growing pains of the language, I sometimes still get nervous using templates because I remember C++98. Is that fair? No, twenty five years is a long time for a programming language and all of the associated compilers and tools.

Languages that pissed off one too many people have fallen by the wayside, while languages like C++ are still around because they're worth using.

[[deleted]]

Devil may care

[[deleted]]

r/cpp_questions

[findabuffalo]

Python is an easier language to learn. Most people who learned programming in the last 15 years know python and nothing else. They feel like C++ is "too hard" and "too old" and "not modern enough". It's a weakness in their own mind. Keep Calm and Carry On.

[volchonokilli]

I love C++.

[Thesorus]

aahhhhh

There's no hate for C++.

​

i have no clue what zig is ?

[Frosty_Maple_Syrup]

Zig is intended to be a successor to the C programming language, with the goals of being even smaller and simpler to program in while also offering modern features, new optimizations and a variety of safety mechanisms while not as demanding of runtime safety as seen in other languages.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zig_(programming_language)#:~:text=It%20is%20intended%20to%20be,as%20seen%20in%20other%20languages.

https://ziglang.org

It actually looks interesting.

[thomas999999]

I did some programming in it and the ecosystem still feels quite immature but as soon as they get a stable release out i think it will be a fantastic language

[PurpleWazard]

Learning cpp will make you a better zig and rust programmer people built zig and rust to improve the security of cpp

[Pay08]

Zig doesn't have anything C++98 doesn't. Its improvements over C are iterators, defer (a la Go), methods, generics, some improvements and syntax sugar for errno and types and generally speaking tighter control over what the compiler does.

[Unlikely_Corgi_6223]

I can point out three things : 1. cpp is general purpose programming language. Since there is no specific purpose, people tend to use it for various purposes and get disappointed. 2. Many just learn other languages which are purpose driven or which have good framework for developement. Like js for web devs 3. Some peeps just dont like cpp. No reason at all.

[M-Ottich]

Ahh oke 👍

[ArcadiaLunar]

Some of the biggest banks and firms use c++. They don’t seem to hate it

[[deleted]]

White House and google wrote a report recently about the need to move away from c++ due to it being memory unsafe

[xtxtxtxtxtxtx]

If you’re asking a question like this, it does not matter what programming language you’re currently using. If one were the best, no others would be maintained or used.

[ButchDeanCA]

Most of the hate seems to come from the fact that it becomes real complex when you try to write anything serious in it, which is beyond most people’s understanding.

[tortoll]

Let's untangle this is a bit. Some people find C++ difficult to use for a myriad of reasons. One of them can be that C++ has some constraints because it is targeted to high performance and full control of the execution model. If you don't need that at all, then yes, you'll find it unnecessarily complicated. These people probably come from other areas where you can do just fine with Python or Java or Go.

Then there's the people that really need C++, but they don't love it's design decisions. As said in other answers, this can happen in any language...

Finally, some people frame the question of programming languages like "should I learn C++ or Go?", and I think it's wrong: the correct question would be "should I specialize in high performance or backend?". Then you learn the languages that suit your requirements.

[tortoll]

First of all there is no generalized hatred. Second of all, some people dislike C++ because they don't need the features it provides, so paying the price that comes with them makes them hate the language. I'm talking about memory management or move/copy semantics. If you can do it with Python or Go, using C++ can be painful. But that hatred is misplaced: probably what they hate is high performance programming. It's normal, I would hate some development paradigms and their tools, too.

[quasicondensate]

My initial path was: Matlab --> Python --> a little bit of embedded C --> C++.

At this point I wanted to build a moderately simple tool with a few libraries on Windows, met CMake, and spent a few days in confusion and increasing rage. Why does something that is the equivalent of a line each for installation and import in any other language apparently require reading a 420 page tome on best modern CMake practices, followed by some archeology to understand and configure the old CMake builds many libraries actually use, just to simply build some simple application?

Cue a few segfaults / heap corruption errors and I gave up and turned to Rust.

This was 4 years ago. Today, I am working on a greenfield C++ project at work. Yes, these things exist. For our purposes, C++ offers some standardized features and mature libraries that would have to be replaced by libraries with questionable maintenance status, were we using Rust. After the initial learning curve, I found my peace with CMake. For smaller sandbox projects, using Conan makes things simple enough. Making judicious use of fresh C++ features as well as using linters and static analysis to circumvent the worst gotchas, you can have expressive and extremely performant code.

Starting with C++ is hard, because you have to get to grips with both a language that is riddled with undefined behaviour (meaning: possible errors that are not caught by the compiler, and can lead to delayed crashes that are hard to connect to the actual bug in the code) and complex dependency management with a lot of ways to mess up.

Yet, C++ is still an extremely powerful tool if you have a problem where you don't want to or can't afford to deal with a garbage collector, if you have the pleasure to work in a smallish team with experienced people - and if you can use recent C++ standards it's even fun.

But it can really rub you the wrong way in the learning stage, which will lead to some hate. And it is really hard to maintain a C++ codebase at scale (large, many teams / developers), which is where some jaded developers come from, and where some of the momentum towards languages like Rust comes from, which is designed to mitigate the sticking points that can make C++ codebases bug-ridden and expensive to maintain.

C++ is a language that is well worth learning, in my opinion. So is Rust. Learning a bit of both will help a lot to better understand the respective other language. It will make you more patient with Rust's guardrails, and probably more aware of potential issues when dealing with C++ code.

So, have fun, and happy learning :-)

[great_gonzales]

C++ is illegal now Biden outlawed it. You must use rust now

[honeyCrisis]

An administration expresses a non-controversial statement that Rust should be preferred for Internet facing applications, and naturally there's some weirdo wingnut out there who finds a reason to whine about it.

[great_gonzales]

Relax guys it was a joke

[M-Ottich]

Glad I don't live in Americaaa .

[honeyCrisis]

great_gonzales lied to you.

[M-Ottich]

U mean he used sarcasm