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

Re:Criticizing the Rust Language, and Why C/C++ Will Never Die by outworlder on Tuesday May 12, 2015 @11:45AM (#9532583)

> C++ is a subset of C, not the other way around.

I can't see how this statement could possibly be true.

> no funny abstractions

Really? Maybe I suck at C++, but I can't meaningfully reason about template-heavy code. Not about the run-time performance, nor resource consumption. STL and Boost are beyond funny if you ask me.

> The formal standard defines what is undefined. Your safety-critical code shouldn't rely on some compiler-specific quirks or some magical code, but rather it should stay within the bounds of well-defined behavior.

Agreed. But take a look at the specification and you'll be amazed on just how much stuff is left for the actual implementation to figure out.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Criticizing the Rust Language, and Why C/C++ Will Never Die by lambdaelite on Tuesday May 12, 2015 @11:51AM (#9532623)

> But take a look at the specification and you'll be amazed on just how much stuff is left for the actual implementation to figure out.

Which is why the coding standard for a critical project will disallow the use of things that can lead to undefined behavior.

[ Parent | on HN ]