Fair enough. I just find it mind boggling how much money flows into completely new language ecosystems compared to improvements for C/C++ tooling which would clearly much more effective if you really cared about overall security of the free software world.

▲

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 9 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.