>"Rust is a superior technology to C++....it disciplines you to do the things the right way."

It is not. The only thing it disciplines one to do is to bend them to confines of particular safety model. And Rust creators do not have the ultimate authority to say what is the right way anyways. No one does. There are multiple concepts fitting different situations. Rust ignores many. As a general language it looks way too opinionated to me.

▲

macgyverismo 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

This is what keeps tripping me up, it is very difficult to be both general and not opinionated. C++ is general, you can use it however you want. Especially in many unsafe ways. Like it or not, this is great news for a general low-level language. A language that tells me how to build, where my files should live and what tools I am to use may be a great user experience, it is not very general. Still not sure what to make of this and where I land on this.

▲

FpUser 7 months ago | parent [-]

>"Like it or not,"

I do not give a flying fuck. Language is a tool. I work with many languages. If clients wants language XYZ then XYZ it is. My private opinion does not matter in this case

▲

johnnyanmac 7 months ago | parent [-]

>If clients wants language XYZ then XYZ it is.

I don't care how much you pay me (well, not in a practical sense), I'm not going to bash a bunch of screws in with a hammer. In my industry, the languages and tools do in fact matter and impact the quality of the project. It's hard enough as is without some unreasonable clients saying "oh yeah, can you make this in powerpoint?"

▲

FpUser 7 months ago | parent [-]

>"I'm not going to bash a bunch of screws in with a hammer."

My clients are not that dumb.

	▲	johnnyanmac 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		I'm exaggerating with that metaphor, but it's honestly not as much as I'd wish. I envy your clients. But I'm not too surprised, either. That's just a result of my domain, sadly.

▲

zozbot234 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Rust ignores many [safety models]. As a general language it looks way too opinionated to me.

I'd like to see some actual examples of this, and I assume many Rust devs would react the same way. In practice, most proposed "safety models" that Rust complains about don't really work when considering that code must be enabled to interact not just within a single module but rather across modules. This is where Rust nudges developers to make the right choices for successful programming "in the large", while still providing the "unsafe" featureset for safety assurances within a single, self-contained context.

	▲	FpUser 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		> Rust ignores many [safety models] ... >I'd like to see some actual examples When I said opinionated and ignores I did not mean safety models. I meant programming concepts like OOP for example. And do not tell me that it is not needed, wrong, etc. It is totally fine and useful for some situations and not so much for others. Developer should have a choice.

▲

johnnyanmac 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

>Rust creators do not have the ultimate authority to say what is the right way anyways. No one does.

If you feel that way, you are free to take the reigns and put unsafe blocks everywhere. Languages by design need to be opinionated (even stuff like machine language), and most of them do not let you say "it's cool, I know what I am doing here" to begin with.