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?
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?
1. Static analysis tools can warn if naked pointers are used.
2. Memory allocation can be instrumented for testing. A good programming practice is to fully unwind all memory allocation before exiting. Any leaks will be detected. This will even catch leaks from cyclic references that Rust does NOT prevent (yes, Rust can leak memory).
3. I don't know much about Rust's concurrency model, but if I Google for "rust deadlock", I get plenty of hits. So it looks like Rust isn't a magic solution.
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)
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?
1. Static analysis tools can warn if naked pointers are used.
2. Memory allocation can be instrumented for testing. A good programming practice is to fully unwind all memory allocation before exiting. Any leaks will be detected. This will even catch leaks from cyclic references that Rust does NOT prevent (yes, Rust can leak memory).
3. I don't know much about Rust's concurrency model, but if I Google for "rust deadlock", I get plenty of hits. So it looks like Rust isn't a magic solution.
Re:How to automate C++ auditing? (Score:2)
A good programming practice is to fully unwind all memory allocation before exiting.
That is a waste time - and leads to unlogical code.
Why does this object get deleted here? "Oh, because the app is quitting ... oh!"