|
| ▲ | cwyers 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| The issue with investing similar levels of effort into making C++ safer is the C++ standards committee doesn't want to adopt those kinds of improvements. |
| |
| ▲ | uecker 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I am not interested in C++, it is also far too complex. In my opinion software needs to become simpler and not more complicated, and I fear Rust might be a step into the wrong direction. | |
| ▲ | account42 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Which is also the reason why we don't have #pragma once and many other extensions like it. Except we do. Compilers can add rust-like static analyzers without the standard committee mandating it. | | |
| ▲ | sunshowers 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | In principle, the full lifetime system of Rust can be added to C++ without committee approval, but in reality the chances seem low. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | sunshowers 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Personally, I use Rust (and have been using it for close to 9 years) because I've been part of multiple teams that have delivered reliable, performant systems software in it, within a budget that would clearly be impossible in any other language. Rust acts as a step change in getting things done. |
