Comment by roca
5 years ago
I really don't understand why someone would think Rust is "pretty darn similar to C++". I think about my code and data in Rust very differently to C++. C++ doesn't have tagged unions, Rust does. C++ does have inheritance, Rust doesn't. C++ templates are quite unlike Rust generics. Rust enforces safety and (mutable XOR shared), C++ doesn't. All of these lead to quite different design decisions for same-shaped problems.
You're looking at the details, while I look at the overall "feel" and find them almost indistinguishable. They're both low-level languages -- and so, like all low-level languages, suffer from low-abstraction, i.e. the difficulty to hide internal implementation details from consumers behind APIs -- that decided to invest their complexity budget to get the appearance of high-level code once you read it on the page (while the difficulty of changing it is the same as with all low-level languages), and don't hesitate to employ a fair bit of implicitness, grow a large set of features, and let compilation be slow. The details of how they do that are less important; what's most apparent is their shared design philosophy of low-level programming (although I think that Rust improves on C++ and certainly cleans it up). Zig offers a radically different approach, and one that is also radically different from C's philosophy.
I don't think your critiques are accurate, but anyway, the "similarity" here is that you have the same high-level critique of both languages. This does not make Rust "pretty darn similar to C++".
For me, memory and data-race safety and absence of undefined behavior are critical features, but it would be misleading if I were to go around saying "C, C++ and Zig are all pretty darn similar".
> the "similarity" here is that you have the same high-level critique of both languages.
The similarity is that they both espouse the very same design philosophy for low-level programming. It's a pretty big similarity.
> For me, memory and data-race safety and absence of undefined behavior are critical features, but it would be misleading if I were to go around saying "C, C++ and Zig are all pretty darn similar".
It would be misleading, because memory safety and undefined behaviour in Zig is much closer to Rust than to C++. Even where it's not the same as Rust, it's still very different from C/C++. Safety and correctness are as emphasised in Zig as in Rust; they just go about achieving them differently. It is not clear at all which of them achieves correctness better.
6 replies →