zlacker

>>Philpa+(OP)
This is why I think that C++ will be around in the next 50 years but Rust? I can't tell.

>>twen_t+s7
C is/was fueled by positive energy: "Let's be (relatively) portable and improve on Assembly."

Rust seems to have vengeful victory at its heart: "Let's sock it to those reckless, ignorant C programmers."

>>chilli+F8
It's more like "let's improve on C by catching errors C compilers don't check." Rust took a lot of inspiration from Cyclone, which was meant to be a safe version of C.

Writing C makes certain classes of sloppy assembly bugs unwritable, like accidentally using the wrong calling convention, forgetting to preserve a register, or forgetting to pop something off the stack. Similarly, Rust makes classes of sloppy C bugs unwritable, like using a dangling pointer.

Why do you view that as an attack on C programmers? It's no more an attack on them than C was an attack on assembly programmers.

>>treali+PP
The attack is the idea that everybody needs to have the same priorities that Rust has and so everybody else is wrong. With regard to memory safety, this even something I could partially agree with, but then there is another problem: In contrast to Cyclone, which was a safe version of C, Rust changes a lot more than simply adding memory safety features. It is not at all like C but has completely different syntax, different conventions, and complexity similar to C++. So in many ways, I find it inferior to C (although I agree that memory safety is good), but Rust people think it is superior in every way and behave like this.