Prefer Rust to C/C++ for new code

Re:Prefer Rust to C/C++ for new code by ncmncm on Friday November 15, 2019 @07:46PM (#21550120)

There is no such language as C/C++.

The characteristics, best practices in, and pitfalls of C are fundamentally different than for C++. Anything that pretends to offer useful advice, but equates them, is certain to be deeply flawed. As, indeed, is TFA.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Prefer Rust to C/C++ for new code by lioeters on Friday November 15, 2019 @10:25PM (#21550798)

I have no chips in the game, but the author does state:

> I’ve been using C since about 1993, and C++ since 2002..

> ..I later put a lot of energy into talking other teams at X into using C++, rather than straight C, for their firmware.

So a charitable reading of the flawed phrase "C/C++" would be C and C++, and the author clearly knows both well to back up his assertions.

All in all, I found the title a fair statement to make, he does offer plenty of reasons and even alternatives.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Prefer Rust to C/C++ for new code by hollerith on Friday November 15, 2019 @07:54PM (#21550168)

Your critique hinges on my being unable or unwilling to rewrite "prefer Rust to C/C++ for new code" as "prefer Rust to C for new code and prefer Rust to C++ for new code", then verifying that OP's argument applies to the rewrite.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Prefer Rust to C/C++ for new code by ncmncm on Friday November 15, 2019 @11:49PM (#21551071)

"C/C++", as such, is a reliable marker of ignorance or bias, regardless of the context you find it in, unless the topic is object-code generation.

[ Parent | on HN ]