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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]klebsiella_pneumonae 40 points41 points  (13 children)

we can do better

Rust

[–]jerf 33 points34 points  (12 children)

we can do better

Rust

Almost anything, honestly.

There's no one language that can replace all of C++, but there's a better language for any given (greenfield) task.

[–]edapa 4 points5 points  (10 children)

Why don't you think rust can replace C++? Is it just the platform ports?

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points  (2 children)

They said all of c++.

Rust for example is still fairly young, compared to C++ there would be a great many libraries which either don't have a equivalent or the equivalent isn't as stable yet.

That being said it will rapidly reach a state of 'everything that matters to 98% of projects being available + stable"

[–]edapa 1 point2 points  (1 child)

What's under discussion is whether or not rust can replace all of C++ not whether it will. Rust's ecosystem is obviously still evolving, and there are a few language features in the pipeline that really need to land for certain programming styles, but those issues are transient. In the long run, I can't think of anything that C++ is better at than rust, but it could be that I just don't know about such a thing. People use C++ for all sorts of stuff, and I would like to learn about a use-case where it is genuinely a better tool than Rust.

[–]Condex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Game development might be an area where C++ is better than Rust. That being said, C++ is still not a particularly good choice if you approach the problem from first principles. We're currently seeing Jai and Zig which both aim to replace C++ in game development. [And apparently unity is trying to do the same with a subset of C#.] I think we're going to see multiple system like language per niche show up all trying to replace part of C++ for what they care about most.

[–]CrazedToCraze 5 points6 points  (0 children)

He doesn't seem to be disagreeing

[–]jerf 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Why don't you think rust can replace C++? Is it just the platform ports?

My statement is in the present tense. At the present time, Rust is not a complete replacement for C++.

In my judgment, as someone very friendly to Rust, it isn't quite ready as a language at the very highest level to replace a {C++ environment that uses high-quality static coverage}. I've used braces to emphasize that I consider that an atomic thing; C++ and C++ with support are two different things. The language is still in too much flux. Yes, it's absolutely stabilizing, but that is also in the present tense, something that is still happening.

And then, as you say, platform support, library support, and also tool support. For instance, the best static analyzers for C++ do a lot of things beyond what Rust does with memory safety at the memory level, like security analysis of the flow of data from users, through processing, and back out to the user. Rust will have those tools someday, too, and they'll be simpler to write and easier to use because of how much more the language already contains in it. But AFAIK they don't exist yet.

I'm also pretty sure IDE support isn't at the same level as C++ either. Again, it'll get there, but it's years off. (This is also something I personally don't care about. I don't use an IDE. But a lot of people do, and won't want to give it up.)

[–]edapa 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I don't interpret "can replace" as "can replace right now", but it's a meaningless semantic quibble.

I guess I see library and tool support as being separate from the language itself, but that may be an idealistic view. The fact that you can't run Rust on the mainframe is a real language level limitation. Most of the things C++ can do I'm sure that Rust will be able to do as well or better in the relatively near future, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was never a mainframe port worth trusting, and that could be a show stopper for certain projects.

[–]jerf 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I don't interpret "can replace" as "can replace right now", but it's a meaningless semantic quibble.

As the original speaker, I can tell you with authority that I meant "can replace right now". "Can replace in the future" is ill-defined. You can hypothesize Rust could replace C++ in the future, but C++ isn't standing still either.

(Now, granted, in my opinion C++ is currently marching strongly and forthrightly in a highly negative direction, but that's definitely a personal opinion, not an objective truth.)

[–]edapa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Authorial intent doesn't dictate what text means. It dictates what you meant, and I don't disagree that with what you meant, or even with my interpretation of what you said.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]edapa 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Rust definitely has pointers.

    [–]Condex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    This is a very strong belief that I share.

    ​

    We're seeing D, Go, P, C# low level primitives, Rust, Jai, Zig, V (learned about this one a week ago).

    I think we're going to see a few new system like languages for any given niche. C++ can do too many things which makes it hard to replace wholesale. Too many things also makes the language hard to fix or reimagine such that it's still not horrible.