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?
The major problems with C++ all started when STL was adopted. Just my opinion, but I'm glad I'm off of C++ and doing C. It means that code reviews can focus most of the time on bugs or actual problems, rather than endless complaints that current fashions aren't being followed.
The attitude that no one can use new or malloc, and yet STL uses new and malloc, causes people to start thinking that STL was written by the Gods themselves and no mere programmer could accomplish this, and even suggesting to alloc a
I'm mostly embedded with C, so using pointers and malloc is normal. However most everything on small systems wants to use memory pools and not arbitrary mallocs, except for buffers. So with a bit of instrumenting, it's easy to find out if someone has leaked something and what code did it.
In seeking the unattainable, simplicity only gets in the way.
-- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982
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:2)
The major problems with C++ all started when STL was adopted. Just my opinion, but I'm glad I'm off of C++ and doing C. It means that code reviews can focus most of the time on bugs or actual problems, rather than endless complaints that current fashions aren't being followed.
The attitude that no one can use new or malloc, and yet STL uses new and malloc, causes people to start thinking that STL was written by the Gods themselves and no mere programmer could accomplish this, and even suggesting to alloc a
Re:How to automate C++ auditing? (Score:2)
P.S. I would love a compiler warning that prevents pointer arithmetic. So when I write
"the answer is " + 5
I get a proper error message.
It should be possible to force safe C++ in all but a few selected modules.
(Overloading "+" for string concat was madness, they should have followed VB and used "&". )
Re: (Score:2)
I'm mostly embedded with C, so using pointers and malloc is normal. However most everything on small systems wants to use memory pools and not arbitrary mallocs, except for buffers. So with a bit of instrumenting, it's easy to find out if someone has leaked something and what code did it.