News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Implications of Rewriting a Browser Component in Rust. Parent comment

Re:Implications of Rewriting a Browser Component in Rust by pjmlp on Friday March 01, 2019 @02:29AM (#19278601)
If you do that, you will be invoking nasal daemons, as at() is required by ISO C++ to throw.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Implications of Rewriting a Browser Component in Rust by jcelerier on Friday March 01, 2019 @03:25AM (#19278802)
thankfully, ISO C++ is a language that no one actually programs in, everyone use `MSVC C++`, `g++ 8.2.1 -fwhatever`, etc
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Implications of Rewriting a Browser Component in Rust by pjmlp on Friday March 01, 2019 @03:31AM (#19278822)
On real world where code portability actually matters, many do program against ISO C++, and have to deal with workarounds for lack of compliance.

Not doing so means ending up with situations like the Linux kernel, Windows or console games, which might be ok, when code portability doesn't matter to start with.

[ Parent | on HN ]