Re:Pointers Are More Abstract Than You Might Expect in C
by kibwen on Monday July 02, 2018 @12:03PM
(#17442789)
Not sure why the above comment is downvoted. The number of features in C++ isn't the root of the problem with C++. The real problem with C++ is that it both has a lot of features and that all of those features interact in subtle and surprising ways. Even if Rust had as many features as C++ (which it doesn't, not by a long shot; Rust is a medium-sized language like Python (though with a far less forgiving learning curve than Python)), one of the design philosophies of Rust is that features should interact in predictable ways, and if two features can't interact in predictable ways, then the compiler should do its damndest to prevent them from being used together and explain why.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Pointers Are More Abstract Than You Might Expect in C
by civility on Monday July 02, 2018 @03:29PM
(#17444668)
Rust also has features which interact in subtle and surprising ways. Generics and operator traits bumping into the "coherence" rules is my personal pet peave. I doubt any user would have predicted that interaction, and even though the compiler gives a detailed pointer to why, it's cold comfort.
Honestly, after hating C++ for years, trying to use Rust made me appreciate more about C++. I wish someone would make a language which took the best parts of both.
Re:Pointers Are More Abstract Than You Might Expect in C
by kibwen on Monday July 02, 2018 @11:53PM
(#17447369)
> even though the compiler gives a detailed pointer to why, it's cold comfort
We'll just have to agree to disagree, because having the compiler watch my back and preemptively guard against unforeseen pitfalls is about the warmest comfort I could ask for. :P
Re:Pointers Are More Abstract Than You Might Expect in C
by civility on Tuesday July 03, 2018 @02:00AM
(#17447907)
Generics and operator traits ought to be orthogonal and composable. Would you still be comforted if the compiler didn't let you mix for loops and arithmetic in one function? I mean, even if it gave you a detailed error message...