Remix.run Logo
Remix clone Hacker News
new | show | ask | jobsGithub
▲ alfiedotwtf 7 months ago

> Because of Rust’s complexity

I would argue there is 2 types of complexities here:

1. Complexities when developing (Rust) 2. Complexities once running in production (C++)

I’d much much prefer to have errors and frustrations developing than users dropping out of the sky at 40,000ft

▲dartos 7 months ago | parent [-]

The issue is that for all rusts complexities, it can still have production issues.

▲bennettnate5 7 months ago | parent [-]

... and for all of C++'s perceived simplicity compared to Rust, it can still have compilation issues (looking at the compiler errors output by template classes can be a downright nightmare)

▲dartos 7 months ago | parent [-]

For sure.

But C++ devs aren’t trying to convince rust devs to change their stack.

▲alfiedotwtf 7 months ago | parent [-]

But I can guarantee C++ developers are trying to convince the world that C++ is safe enough for everyone

▲dartos 7 months ago | parent [-]

Can you?

I’ve never heard that from a C++ dev.

I don’t think any C++ dev worth talking about thinks that C++ is particularly safe, just that (modern) C++ has plenty of powerful safety features. (Like smart pointers. Analogous to rust’s Rc and Arc)

So much so that it approaches rust’s safety promises in the most common cases.

In what I’ve seen, C++ devs are largely unconvinced that rust is more safe than modern C++ in the most common cases, but rust has a much higher complexity cost, especially when integrating with C code.

It’s really hard to convince hardcore C and C++ devs to use rust, because most of the touted features are seen as fixes for skill issues. Not because they believe that rust is not safer.