(Safe) Rust is a lot better about the "Pit of Success" design than C++

There are fundamental technical choices to deliver that, but also ergonomic things like notice Rust's []::sort is a stable sort, whereas C++ std::sort is an unstable sort. If you don't know about sort stability in Rust what you wrote works and in C++ you get a nasty surprise.

▲

bregma an hour ago | parent [-]

C++ has std::sort() and std::stable_sort(). You should write what you mean, and you should know and understand your tools. Blaming the tool for your ignorance marks you as significantly less than an artisan.

▲

Mond_ 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Sort specifically is kind of a weird example, but C++ is full of awful naming.

std::map (which is not a hash map, which is what most people would expect), std::move (which doesn't move), std::vector (which is not a vector), and std::vector<bool> (which is not even a std::vector).

▲

tialaramex an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Sure, both languages offer both generic comparison sorts†. But the defaults matter and as always in C++ the defaults are wrong, here it's reflected in naming.

That's not actionable information, except in the sense that the correct action is "don't use C++". Because sure, I know about sort stability, and I know about pointer provenance, and about memory ordering, but there might be any number of things I do not know and unfortunately in C++ "you should know and understand" absolutely everything at all times, which is not viable.

† The C++ standard library sorts are both much slower than in Rust, but hey, they're also both less safe so you're really getting the worst of both worlds

	▲	patrick451 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Sure, both languages offer both generic comparison sorts†. But the defaults matter and as always in C++ the defaults are wrong, here it's reflected in naming. Why, exactly, is the c++ std::sort "wrong"? There are tradeoffs both ways. You happen to prefer stable sorting to speed, but that is a preference not an objective fact.