News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Rust vs C Pitfalls by gpderetta on Tuesday December 27, 2016 @06:04PM (#13267029)
> But I really like function overloading, generic operators that I can overload from the left and the right, integer parameters for my templates/generics, copy semantics as the default [etc.]

I do too, and I'd like to think that rust needs all those things to be a replacement, but realistically I think that the only killer feature that rust is still missing is reasonable interoperability with C++ (which admittedly might require implementing a few of those features).

Disclaimer: I have been following rust since Graydon initial announcement, but I have yet to write a single line of code in it.

Re:Rust vs C Pitfalls by akiselev on Wednesday December 28, 2016 @02:29AM (#13269021)
What do you mean by "reasonable?" There are several crates that provide inline C++ macros on both nightly (rustcxx) and stable (rust-cpp). I haven't used the latter but the former works really well (albeit using a gcc specific feature). I usually break out the C++ code into a wrapper (unless its a few lines) to make it more idiomatic Rust but at the end of the day, there aren't that many hoops to jump through.