Attract people with promises based on unwarranted denigration of other technologies. They should present appropriate, independent studies instead, not just claim something. In the article itself you can read that even Microsoft with its billions of lines of C++ code will certainly never switch to Rust. And in C++ 23 something similar to what is not even thought through in Rust today is also planned.
back
3 comments
> And in C++ 23 something similar to what is not even thought through in Rust today is also planned.
Source? The closest thing in C++ to what Rust offers today is the C++ Core Guidelines https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines but these are best-effort in nature and do not have a goal of comprehensively ensuring soundness or memory-safety.
And I'm not sure why you're implyng that the Rust featureset "isn't even thought through" when the Rust Belt project has been doing a lot of work on modeling it in a principled and clearly-understandable way, and this has already contributed usefully to the design of newer Rust features.
There are a lot of mechanisms in C++ to avoid the issue Rust want's to solve with the borrow checker altogether. And there are proposals going in the same direction as the borrow checker. But in the end, human error can somehow circumvent all these security mechanisms, no matter how much hoopla they are praised today.
As mentioned by your parent, matching Rust’s abilities here is a non-goal for this project. Still very glad to see it!
> And in C++ 23 something similar to what is not even thought through in Rust today is also planned.
I'll believe it when I see it. The C++ committee consistently fails to deliver on safety features.