←back to thread

Matt Godbolt sold me on Rust by showing me C++

(www.collabora.com)
611 points LorenDB | 1 comments | 06 May 25 17:51 UTC | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
kasajian ◴[06 May 25 19:33 UTC] No.43908799[source]▶
This seems a big silly. This is not a language issue. You can have a C++ library that does exactly all the things being shown here so that the application developer doesn't worry about. There would no C++ language features missing that would accomplish what you're able to do on the Rust side.

So is this really a language comparison, or what libraries are available for each language platform? If the latter, that's fine. But let's be clear about what the issue is. It's not the language, it's what libraries are included out of the box.

replies(5): >>43908863 #>>43908898 #>>43908901 #>>43908932 #>>43909794 #
1. lytedev ◴[06 May 25 19:45 UTC] No.43908898[source]▶
The core of this argument taken to its extreme kind of makes the whole discussion pointless, right? All the languages can do all the things, so why bother differentiating them?

To entertain the argument, though, it may not be a language issue, but it certainly is a selling point for the language (which to me indicates a "language issue") to me if the language takes care of this "library" (or good defaults as I might call them) for you with no additional effort -- including tight compiler and tooling integration. That's not to say Rust always has good defaults, but I think the author's point is that if you compare them apples-to-oranges, it does highlight the different focuses and feature sets.

I'm not a C++ expert by any stretch, so it's certainly a possibility that such a library exists that makes Rust's type system obsolete in this discussion around correctness, but I'm not aware of it. And I would be incredibly surprised if it held its ground in comparison to Rust in every respect!