←back to thread

611 points LorenDB | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.351s | source
Show context
kasajian ◴[] 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 #
Etheryte ◴[] No.43908863[source]
Just like language shapes the way we think and talk about things, programming languages shape both what libraries are written and how. You could write anything in anything so long as it's Turing complete, but in real life we see clearly that certain design decisions at the language level either advantage or disadvantage certain types of solutions. Everyone could in theory write C without any memory issues, but we all know how that turns out in practice. The language matters.
replies(1): >>43911007 #
1. Maxatar ◴[] No.43911007[source]
The Sapir Whorf hypothesis has long been debunked:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

replies(2): >>43911823 #>>43912987 #
2. oasisaimlessly ◴[] No.43911823[source]
The strong hypothesis has been debunked, yes, but nobody is asserting it.

From your link:

> Nevertheless, research has produced positive empirical evidence supporting a weaker version of linguistic relativity:[5][4] that a language's structures influence a speaker's perceptions, without strictly limiting or obstructing them.