5 ms·

The C++ community seldom "flames" the Rust one. On the other hand, I often see C++ threads on Hackernews ending with people bashing this language ("C++ hell", "

The C++ community seldom "flames" the Rust one. On the other hand, I often see C++ threads on Hackernews ending with people bashing this language ("C++ hell", "dirty language", "dying soon") and bringing Rust on the table. It is pretty frustrating when you actually want to exchange on this language, far from dead, and enjoyed by some.

_yosefk 10y ago
"The C++ community flames the Rust community" right in this thread. TFA didn't say there was no merit to the "safe C++ subset" [1], just that it's not here yet, it's not going to be as safe as Rust, and that it's often mentioned as if it's here and as safe as Rust, that's why TFA called it vaporware. This thread is not refuting this claim but explicitly or implicitly blames TFA and "the Rust community" for misrepresenting C++ as dead, useless and not worthy of improvement. Of course C++ is far from dead, enjoyed by some, and used by many more; TFA did not claim otherwise. Of course improving C++ helps those using it; TFA did not claim otherwise. All it claimed was that the current and potential future state of Rust relatively to C++ was misrepresented by people at the C++ side; I think you're more supporting than refuting this claim. [1] I personally, unlike TFA and some commenters here, must say that I'm not thrilled about anything having to do with unique_ptr (which as TFA demonstrated is not guaranteed to be unique at all, but is as unique as its user made it) and other such; certainly if I have to rewrite an old code base to use new smart pointers, the change will involve every corner of that code base, and I think I'd rather rewrite it in another actually safe language if safety is what worries me. But that's just me; and BTW I haven't personally looked deeply enough into Rust to advocate for it, either.
- jguegant 10y ago
  In that case, the blog post was explicitly comparing Rust and C++. It is not surprising that the comparison goes both way. I am talking about the HN topics like "How to implement a packet tracer in C++" or "Optimize std::vector with C++14" where invariably a comment like "Who use C++ in 2016 when you have Rust?" spawns. Rust is amazing, but that doesn't make it the de-facto answer to all the projects. Some people might still want to increase their skills in their day-to-day language like C++, even if they are aware of Rust awesome features.
jfoutz 10y ago
Ah, i had no intention of flaming C++. A ton of really great software is made with C++. I think most sane C++ programmers will freely admit there are dark and scary corners. Just like any other tool people actually use. A professor of mine used to talk about (i assume he still does) how software is like a plant. New software is always fun and cute and understandable like anything young, babies, puppies, kittens, whatever. C++ is like an oak tree. there are gnarled branches, but is quite beautiful taken as a whole. Like an oak tree, it stands the test of time. The rust community has been ponderous in adding features. I think they've picked a really nice set of stuff to support. Perhaps rust will turn into a beautiful old oak, perhaps not. I'll stretch the metaphor a bit more, C++ doesn't have as much room to grow. It's far from done, but there's a lot of legacy code that must be supported. Choices were made decades ago that limit options today. Again, this isn't meant to malign C++, it's just how hindsight works. Rust on the other hand has has the benefit of hindsight. Rust will make plenty of mistakes, but the community can avoid some of the trouble C++ has had simply because it's new and has more information about what's really useful and what's not. The rust community has by and large been very aware of what works and what doesn't. They're careful gardeners. They've learned their history, and want to try other stuff. Perhaps rust can grow to be a mighty oak like C++. I hope it will, but that remains to be seen.
openfuture 10y ago
My hypothesis: disgruntled students taking out their frustrations on C++
bluejekyll 10y ago
I don't think it's fair to call criticism flaming, and I think the article and most of this thread are being critical, and fair, again not flaming. I'll grant you that the tone of the article was harsh, but it's a fair criticism (IMO). The Rust community is one that generally is extremely supportive of new users, even when those users are very pissed off at the steep learning curve with lifetimes, etc. It's impressive to see some of the even handed responses to questions. Reiterating what others have said, no one is saying C++ is dead, no one is saying that C++ won't be around for a very long time. What people I think are saying in general is; if what you want is a memory safe, data race safe, strongly typed (with ergonomics) language, Rust is a great one. It's got lots of really nice modern semantics, and comes at the same performance cost as C++ (in general). It's like a Tesla vs. an awesome classic Ferrari; no one wants that Ferrari to die crashing out a window, in fact any car lover wants to see that thing continue to get a lot of love and work to maintain it. But maybe there's a nice car that would be better to drive day in and day out, so that you don't have to worry as much about a parking attendant taking if for a joy ride.

_yosefk 10y ago

"The C++ community flames the Rust community" right in this thread. TFA didn't say there was no merit to the "safe C++ subset" [1], just that it's not here yet, it's not going to be as safe as Rust, and that it's often mentioned as if it's here and as safe as Rust, that's why TFA called it vaporware. This thread is not refuting this claim but explicitly or implicitly blames TFA and "the Rust community" for misrepresenting C++ as dead, useless and not worthy of improvement. Of course C++ is far from dead, enjoyed by some, and used by many more; TFA did not claim otherwise. Of course improving C++ helps those using it; TFA did not claim otherwise. All it claimed was that the current and potential future state of Rust relatively to C++ was misrepresented by people at the C++ side; I think you're more supporting than refuting this claim. [1] I personally, unlike TFA and some commenters here, must say that I'm not thrilled about anything having to do with unique_ptr (which as TFA demonstrated is not guaranteed to be unique at all, but is as unique as its user made it) and other such; certainly if I have to rewrite an old code base to use new smart pointers, the change will involve every corner of that code base, and I think I'd rather rewrite it in another actually safe language if safety is what worries me. But that's just me; and BTW I haven't personally looked deeply enough into Rust to advocate for it, either.

jguegant 10y ago
In that case, the blog post was explicitly comparing Rust and C++. It is not surprising that the comparison goes both way. I am talking about the HN topics like "How to implement a packet tracer in C++" or "Optimize std::vector with C++14" where invariably a comment like "Who use C++ in 2016 when you have Rust?" spawns. Rust is amazing, but that doesn't make it the de-facto answer to all the projects. Some people might still want to increase their skills in their day-to-day language like C++, even if they are aware of Rust awesome features.

jfoutz 10y ago

Ah, i had no intention of flaming C++. A ton of really great software is made with C++. I think most sane C++ programmers will freely admit there are dark and scary corners. Just like any other tool people actually use. A professor of mine used to talk about (i assume he still does) how software is like a plant. New software is always fun and cute and understandable like anything young, babies, puppies, kittens, whatever. C++ is like an oak tree. there are gnarled branches, but is quite beautiful taken as a whole. Like an oak tree, it stands the test of time. The rust community has been ponderous in adding features. I think they've picked a really nice set of stuff to support. Perhaps rust will turn into a beautiful old oak, perhaps not. I'll stretch the metaphor a bit more, C++ doesn't have as much room to grow. It's far from done, but there's a lot of legacy code that must be supported. Choices were made decades ago that limit options today. Again, this isn't meant to malign C++, it's just how hindsight works. Rust on the other hand has has the benefit of hindsight. Rust will make plenty of mistakes, but the community can avoid some of the trouble C++ has had simply because it's new and has more information about what's really useful and what's not. The rust community has by and large been very aware of what works and what doesn't. They're careful gardeners. They've learned their history, and want to try other stuff. Perhaps rust can grow to be a mighty oak like C++. I hope it will, but that remains to be seen.

openfuture 10y ago

My hypothesis: disgruntled students taking out their frustrations on C++

bluejekyll 10y ago

I don't think it's fair to call criticism flaming, and I think the article and most of this thread are being critical, and fair, again not flaming. I'll grant you that the tone of the article was harsh, but it's a fair criticism (IMO). The Rust community is one that generally is extremely supportive of new users, even when those users are very pissed off at the steep learning curve with lifetimes, etc. It's impressive to see some of the even handed responses to questions. Reiterating what others have said, no one is saying C++ is dead, no one is saying that C++ won't be around for a very long time. What people I think are saying in general is; if what you want is a memory safe, data race safe, strongly typed (with ergonomics) language, Rust is a great one. It's got lots of really nice modern semantics, and comes at the same performance cost as C++ (in general). It's like a Tesla vs. an awesome classic Ferrari; no one wants that Ferrari to die crashing out a window, in fact any car lover wants to see that thing continue to get a lot of love and work to maintain it. But maybe there's a nice car that would be better to drive day in and day out, so that you don't have to worry as much about a parking attendant taking if for a joy ride.