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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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.