Criticizing the Rust Language, and Why C/C++ Will Never Die

Re:Criticizing the Rust Language, and Why C/C++ Will Never Die by mkpankov on Tuesday May 12, 2015 @11:33AM (#9532507)

Note the translation is done by a company which makes C++ static analyzer for a living.

This might be the case of conflict of interest and/or heavy bias.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Criticizing the Rust Language, and Why C/C++ Will Never Die by astrodust on Tuesday May 12, 2015 @11:59AM (#9532680)

It also means they know what they're talking about.

Many of the points are valid, but it's important to remember Rust is not even released. Java 1, Ruby 1, Perl 1, Python 1 were all pretty terrible compared to their current manifestations.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Criticizing the Rust Language, and Why C/C++ Will Never Die by EugeneOZ on Tuesday May 12, 2015 @01:17PM (#9533283)

They know only 1 part of the bridge, but without second part is not the bridge, but shameful biased grunt "oh oh, will we still make money on C++ or we need to learn something new to keep our income?". And question is answered before they company existed. They even dare enough to recommend others don't learn Rust in favor of C++ - so biased recommendation makes whole grunt even more pointless.

Don't get me wrong, I understand difference between constructive criticism and biased grunt of grumpy C++ programmer.

[ Parent | on HN ]