Are you 50 years old? That was the period when people loughted at C.
I think you misunderstood, I'm But not I have no particular interest in defending c++ over rust, I was just saying that is to be expected that people will not believe you when you present yourself as the revolutionary language that will fix every problem on earth. People loughted at java and loughed at python and will lough at rust no matter how good it is.
it's an unecessary change because millenials don't want to bother learning a language that has "just werked" forever, and still continues to be updated, and get faster and more efficient.
it's not 1876 anymore, we don't have to reinvent the wheel every time we want to do something new. C++ already has compilers so advanced that it's more optimized than assembly, and it has decades of improvements and updates under its belt.
It works everywhere, for every situation.
What is the problem with it? Why do these nu-male shitheads want to increase fragmentation for no fucking reason?
All these memelanguages just waste people's time.
but there's another interesting fact: rust does nothing new.
>People loughted at java
Well, some of us still do
in that case, i wasn't surprised to see someone laugh at a modern language, simply disappointed by his lack of effort. i do understand that, i have heard that it goes back to the point where assembly programmers would mock the first compiled languages as "perhaps an educational tool, but useless for real programming".
as for "revolutionary language that will fix every problem on earth" i hardly suggested that ;) i think it's taking "low-level" in the right direction.
and by the time rust gets as good and optimized as C++ is, it'll be phased out for whatever's memeing again.
>it's an unecessary change
so was C++
>and still continues to be updated,
tell me when concepts and modules are released
>we don't have to reinvent the wheel every time we want to do something new.
we don't have to, but there are still improvements to be made from starting fresh
>C++ already has compilers so advanced that it's more optimized than assembly,
rust uses llvm, this is 80% irrelevant today and will be 100% irrelevant in 2 years
>and it has decades of improvements and updates under its belt.
c++'s biggest problem is that it never gets smaller
>Why do these nu-male shitheads want to increase fragmentation for no fucking reason?
only using one language is your problem, not mine -- every language worth using teaches you something that you can take to all languages, and a programmer that only knows one language sounds like a pretty damn inexperienced programmer to me.
>but there's another interesting fact: rust does nothing new.
as a usable systems programming language, it combines into one package a rich feature set not available elsewhere. i am also unaware of another language with ownership, borrowing, and lifetimes as implemented in rust. additionally, it is a low-level language with high-level cross-platform non-proprietary tooling.
C++ is much larger than C. It brought new features that people required.
I agree with you on learning multiple languages. But rust's selling points are just lazy programmers who need things to be implemented FOR them instead of BY them, and just a serious lack of creativity.
>It brought new features that people required.
tell that to kernel devs, you can always find an opinion that older is better.
>But rust's selling points are just lazy programmers who need things to be implemented FOR them instead of BY them
have you considered the benefits of higher level features and tools being a standard part of the open source language rather than having ten competing and incompatible ugly implementations of basic concepts like dependency management? i don't have to write cmake/insert_replacement_here wrappers for every library i use anymore. also i would presume a large number of early adopters are contributors to the language and/or tools themselves.
>and just a serious lack of creativity.
in what way? because it takes good features from other languages? because the features that are somewhat unique to it you personally don't see a use for? it's hard to fairly judge a language you haven't invested time into.
you're right, I haven't invested time into it. But that's because I really don't see the need. There's no time in my regular programming that I've felt "oh well shit this language is terrible isn't it, I really wish it had X". At least for my needs.
The kernel devs didn't need those features, and Torvalds prefers C's simplicity. His prerogative.
Personally, I'm an embedded programmer and I write mathematical utilities for the researchers at my uni as well.
If someone is starting a project that _NEEDS_ a certain particular feature that rust or go or whatever other fad is in, go ahead and use it. But I'm a strong believer that there should be a "standard language" that most things are written in. I really think that language should be C++. There's no point causing fragmentation and isolation by the plebs writing some insignificant program that's 100 lines long in a meme language just to pimp their github when C++ could have done just fine.
tl;dr: use rust/go if you NEED it. If it is possible to do it in C++, use C++.
you keep backpedaling to laziness and memes, so i guess i've said all there is to say. i thought c++ should be the "standard language" when i was a c++ elitist, i now think that was incredibly immature of me. i hope for your sake you get over your preconceived notions of all modern languages and widen your perspective.
on the other hand, if you want a better language to laugh at, check out jonathan blow's jai, aka let's make a c++ replacement by holding our dick and seeing where it leads us.