The majority of Rust programmers I know were C++ programmers in the past. Many, including myself, use both professionally.
Does this, to you, look like a response that is welcoming to C++ devs? I gave careful and impassive reasons, and you strike back with literal ad hominem attacks.
This sort of reply is what makes Rust, as a community, look shallow-minded and toxic.
That jumble of ideas is a good example of the arrogance directed not only at C++ programmers, but also Golang and C.
- Smart pointers
- auto and const references all over the place
- RAII
- Pure data structs
- Free functions
- At little bit of templating but not too crazy
Modern C++ reads a bit like JavaScript strangely!
I yield to your comment.
I didn't say it was.
I didn't say anything about best practice, only about familiarity.
Well, the syntax is alien and new, it doesn't do OO the way 9 out of 10 working developers expect it to, almost all C++ popular design patterns have to be rejected, many of the claims("fearless concurrency") are exaggerated and the Rust evangelists are really really toxic when referring to C++ or C, often simply claiming that fewer bugs is worth the tradeoff from switching to Rust.
I literally saw a comment on HN this past week complaining that OSes are not switching to Rust, almost completely ignoring the fact that any rewrite of a 3 decades old codebase is going to introduce more bugs than it is going to prevent, even if you have perfect memory safety (which you won't, in an OS).
In all honesty, Rust would have been adopted orders of magnitudes faster had Rust evangelists been welcoming, and not accused of being defensive or hostile.
I mean, look through this very page full of comments, and be honest, how many of the comments talking about C++ developers are welcoming to C++ developers?