undefined | Better HN

0 pointswakawaka283mo ago0 comments

>In those languages, correct logic and getting the program to compile doesn't guarantee you are free from data races or segmentation faults.

I don't believe that it's guaranteed in Rust either, despite much marketing to the contrary. It just doesn't sound appealing to say "somewhat reduces many common problems" lol

>Also, Rust's type system being so strong, it allows you to encode so many invariants that it makes implementing the correct logic easier (although not simpler).

C++ has a strong type system too, probably fancier than Rust's or at least similar. Most people do not want to write complex type system constraints. I'm guessing that at most 25% of C++ codebases at most use complex templates with recursive templates, traits, concepts, `requires`, etc.

0 comments

simonask3mo ago

Comparing type systems is difficult, but the general experience is that it is significantly easier to encode logic invariants in Rust than in C++.

Some of the things you can do, often with a wild amount of boilerplate (tagged unions, niches, etc.), and some of the things are fundamentally impossible (movable non-null owning references).

C++ templates are more powerful than Rust generics, but the available tools in Rust are more sophisticated.

sunshowers3mo ago

Note that while C++ templates are more powerful than Rust generics at being able to express different patterns of code, Rust generics are better at producing useful error messages. To me, personally, good error messages are the most fundamental part of a compiler frontend.

wakawaka28OP3mo ago

Concepts make it possible to generate very clear (even user-friendly) template errors.

1 more reply

wakawaka28OP3mo ago

I don't agree that Rust tools are more sophisticated and they definitely are not more abundant. You just have a language that is more anal up front. C++ has many different compilers, analyzers, debuggers, linting tools, leak detectors, profilers, etc. It turns out that 40 years of use leads to significant development that is hard to rebuild from scratch.

I seem to have struck a nerve with my post, which got 4 downvotes so far. Just for saying Rust is not actually better than C++ in this one regard lol.

simonask3mo ago

I think it’s because you misread my comment by skimming over the important parts.

This isn’t about tooling, it’s about language features and type systems.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointswakawaka283mo ago0 comments

>In those languages, correct logic and getting the program to compile doesn't guarantee you are free from data races or segmentation faults.

I don't believe that it's guaranteed in Rust either, despite much marketing to the contrary. It just doesn't sound appealing to say "somewhat reduces many common problems" lol

>Also, Rust's type system being so strong, it allows you to encode so many invariants that it makes implementing the correct logic easier (although not simpler).

0 comments

simonask3mo ago

Comparing type systems is difficult, but the general experience is that it is significantly easier to encode logic invariants in Rust than in C++.

Some of the things you can do, often with a wild amount of boilerplate (tagged unions, niches, etc.), and some of the things are fundamentally impossible (movable non-null owning references).

C++ templates are more powerful than Rust generics, but the available tools in Rust are more sophisticated.

sunshowers3mo ago

wakawaka28OP3mo ago

Concepts make it possible to generate very clear (even user-friendly) template errors.

1 more reply

wakawaka28OP3mo ago

I seem to have struck a nerve with my post, which got 4 downvotes so far. Just for saying Rust is not actually better than C++ in this one regard lol.

simonask3mo ago

I think it’s because you misread my comment by skimming over the important parts.

This isn’t about tooling, it’s about language features and type systems.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse