despite developers' positive feelings toward Rust, 97% of them hadn't actually used it.
Who says they love something they have not used???
I might say something seems decent, but no way would I say I *LOVE* a language until I've done a few real things in it.
The top issues that respondents say the Rust project could do to improve adoption of the language are better training and documentation, followed by better libraries, IDE integration, and improved compile times...
I don't see why anyone would "love" any programming language.
I have looked at Rust and written some simple toy programs. But I don't use it for work.
The problems Rust claims to fix, such as memory leaks, buffer overflows, and safe threads, can be done in C++ with "safe pointers", proper programming practices, and coding standards.
So, with a huge code base of working C++, it doesn't make sense to switch. It would be yet-another-language that everyone we hire would need to know. We would be constantly swit
The problems Rust claims to fix, such as memory leaks, buffer overflows, and safe threads, can be done in C++ with "safe pointers", proper programming practices, and coding standards.
How do you automate auditing a C++ project for use of the sort of "proper programming practices and coding standards" that prevent the same problems that safe Rust prevents?
If you are using new (or god forbid malloc) instead of the STL containers and class members to allocate and delete objects, you are setting yourself up for failure.
So no shared_ptr for you? No objects with dynamic lifetime? Looks like you would enjoy using linear type system like Rust has.
shared_ptr requires you to use new or malloc? And what do you imagine by "dynamic lifetime"? Don't you mean indefinite lifetime? Since otherwise it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Wait a second... (Score:5, Insightful)
despite developers' positive feelings toward Rust, 97% of them hadn't actually used it.
Who says they love something they have not used???
I might say something seems decent, but no way would I say I *LOVE* a language until I've done a few real things in it.
The top issues that respondents say the Rust project could do to improve adoption of the language are better training and documentation, followed by better libraries, IDE integration, and improved compile times...
That is a pretty tall list of things that
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why anyone would "love" any programming language.
I have looked at Rust and written some simple toy programs. But I don't use it for work.
The problems Rust claims to fix, such as memory leaks, buffer overflows, and safe threads, can be done in C++ with "safe pointers", proper programming practices, and coding standards.
So, with a huge code base of working C++, it doesn't make sense to switch. It would be yet-another-language that everyone we hire would need to know. We would be constantly swit
How to automate C++ auditing? (Score:1)
The problems Rust claims to fix, such as memory leaks, buffer overflows, and safe threads, can be done in C++ with "safe pointers", proper programming practices, and coding standards.
How do you automate auditing a C++ project for use of the sort of "proper programming practices and coding standards" that prevent the same problems that safe Rust prevents?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If you are using new (or god forbid malloc) instead of the STL containers and class members to allocate and delete objects, you are setting yourself up for failure.
So no shared_ptr for you? No objects with dynamic lifetime? Looks like you would enjoy using linear type system like Rust has.
Re:How to automate C++ auditing? (Score:2)