On 03/03/2014 09:18 PM, Kevin Ballard wrote:
On Mar 3, 2014, at 8:44 PM, Nathan Myers <n...@cantrip.org> wrote:
There are certainly cases in either language where nothing but a
pointer will do. The problem here is to present examples that are
simple enough for presentation, not contrived, and where Rust has
the clear advantage in safety and (ideally) clarity. For such
>> examples I'm going to insist on a competent C++ coder if we are
>> not to drive away our best potential converts.
You seem to be arguing that C++ written correctly by a highly-skilled
> C++ coder is just as good as Rust code, and therefore the inherent
> safety of Rust does not give it an advantage over C++. And that's
ridiculous.
That would be a ridiculous position to argue, and this would be a
ridiculous place to argue it. Maybe try reading the preceding
paragraph again?
My concern is that the examples presented in tutorials must be
compelling to skilled C++ programmers. If we fail to win them over, the
whole project will have been a waste of time. The most skilled
C++ programmers know all too well what mistakes show up over and
over again. They have lots of experience with proposed solutions
that fail.
C++ is mature enough now that some are looking for the language
that can pick up where C++ leaves off. They wonder if Rust might
become that language. (It manifestly is not that language yet.)
They are who will need to initiate new, important projects that
risk using it, and they are who will explain what it doesn't do
well enough yet, and how to fix it -- but only if we can keep
their already heavily-oversubscribed interest in the first 30
minutes. A silly example is deadly.
Nathan Myers
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
