News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:C++ vs. Rust Build Times by rapsey on Friday January 06, 2023 @08:12AM (#34274219)
0. Learning curve is not even remotely close to C++ and all it's gotchas. And it will never be so. What has to be explained in every one of these threads, Rust is becoming EASIER to use with time not more. New releases make the std nicer and they remove language limitations.

1. Plenty of tools to keep track of your dependencies. It is also entirely possible to go it your own way and keep dependencies very low. You just have to implement more things yourself. Dependencies don't just insert themselves into your code on their own.

2. I don't even understand what you mean. Rust has a ton of very good resources to learn from coming from all knowledge levels. You can also use Rust at an entirely C level and only use as many advanced abstractions as you are comfortable with.

Re:C++ vs. Rust Build Times by pjmlp on Friday January 06, 2023 @10:01AM (#34275329)
Are you sure about 0 when Rust is 40 years old?

C++ in 1993 was also quite easy to learn.

Re:C++ vs. Rust Build Times by rapsey on Friday January 06, 2023 @10:19AM (#34275573)
Have you read past the first sentence?
Re:C++ vs. Rust Build Times by pjmlp on Friday January 06, 2023 @11:18AM (#34276548)
Surely, the other points don't address how Rust will look like when it reaches 40 years of language evolution.
Re:C++ vs. Rust Build Times by hawski on Friday January 06, 2023 @05:09PM (#34281972)
I recall that each revision of C++ is there to make the std nicer and remove language limitations. The problem is always backwards compatibility. What makes Rust different?