is a user on mst3k.interlinked.me. You can follow them or interact with them if you have an account anywhere in the fediverse.
If you don't, you can sign up here.
The amount of effort Rust programmers have put into reimplementing every thing is nothing short of astonishing. Some call it progress. I personally call it reinventing the wheel.
@Elizafox C/C++ are fine, aren’t they? I don’t understand why people love Rust so much.
Is it really that much nicer?
@Elizafox
@slightlyflightyone "SAFETY SAFETY SAFETY!!!"
Of course, people under the age of 25 don't usually seem to understand memory safety in a programming language is not only not new, it's not even novel. Nor is an automatically garbage-collected (via refcounting) memory safe language.
Lisp has been doing it since 1959.
@Elizafox I use C, so I’m not worried about it.
and after a semester of C I really appreciate this concept
@Michcioperz @Elizafox @slightlyflightyone No, it's not GC at all. It uses RAII, similar to C++.
@Elizafox @slightlyflightyone You're missing the point of Rust, which is memory safety enforced by the compiler as a statically type checked attribute of the program. It allows you to write very low level code without the overhead of a GC runtime.
The idea of memory "ownership" and who has the ability to point to a buffer has always been an informal part of programming (is baked into AmigaOS's messaging API), but it's never been a formal detail before.
@vertigo yea, it's hard for me to overstate how much more I enjoy programming in Rust compared to C/C++. The learning curve can be steep, but I really like the extra confidence in my code that it gives me @Elizafox @slightlyflightyone
All of what @vertigo said, but also: 90% of the time there's no need to rewrite existing programs into new languages.
@Elizafox @slightlyflightyone
@vertigo @Elizafox @slightlyflightyone It's also just nice having a low level language that borrows so much from ML and supports some functional-ish idiom.
Now, to be fair, you can program C++ in a pretty functional-ish way, but Rust seems to support it better. That and you have better choices about how to handle memory when doing so.
@vertigo @Elizafox @slightlyflightyone Also there is one OTHER killer feature: metaprogramming. C++ macros are...well...bad.
There's really no two ways about it. Rust macros do a much better job.
THAT SAID there are some people wanting to put metaprogramming into an upcoming C++ standard which I'm rather looking forward to.
@Azure @Elizafox @slightlyflightyone Also, Rust has module support now. C++ community still can't decide which of four different proposals for the syntax they want.
Which means more keywords that were one valid identifiers, potentially breaking existing code. So while Rust as a language definitely is evolving, C++ is not immune from this either.
@vertigo @Elizafox @slightlyflightyone also a C-like language with a better type system :^)
@slightlyflightyone Also if you want your programs to work 5 years from now definitely don't use rust because they most certainly will not.