Rust lobbyists winning

  • blobjim [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    9 hours ago

    It’s just the obvious thing. C and C++ don’t have safeguards against dangerous programming mistakes. Programming languages exist that do. There are to this day still software vulnerabilities being caused by subtly incorrect code that C and C++ require being treated as legitimate.

    • brainw0rms [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 hours ago

      C and C++ don’t have safeguards against dangerous programming mistakes.

      This is not really true for modern C++… and if you’re talking about code bases that use an ancient dialect of C++ where it might be true, the fantasy of even having the option of porting to Rust is actually pretty laughable. C will continue to be necessary for many critical things because there simply isn’t sufficient compiler support coverage for Rust to take the throne.

      • sexual_tomato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        The difference here is that it takes discipline and training to use only those parts of C++. That requires humans in the loop to enforce those decisions. Humans are fallible.

        If you make it impossible at the language level then there’s nothing to train. You just can’t do the thing unintentionally.

        And they didn’t specify Rust; the aerospace industry has been using Ada for decades when it comes to mission critical stuff. Ada’s compiler has long had a similar notoriety to rust’s regarding the difficulty curve.

        • smpl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          My guess would also be that most enterprises prefer Ada over Rust, because Rust lack standardisation. Sometimes you need to do unsafe things though and your billion dollar rocket explode.