Comment by FpUser
3 years ago
>"feature parity with C++"
I think Rust is missing a fair bit more than "user-specified local allocators" to be on feature parity with C++. Curious if it plans to be on full feature parity.
3 years ago
>"feature parity with C++"
I think Rust is missing a fair bit more than "user-specified local allocators" to be on feature parity with C++. Curious if it plans to be on full feature parity.
It definitely misses some features that are considered bad: e.g implementation inheritance or memory handling by exceptions. Those are not essential for anything and are not planned.
>" implementation inheritance "
What authority declares implementation inheritance bad may I ask? As long as one does not stick it into inappropriate places it is actually very helpful.
1. it can be always replaced with composition, which Rust already supports
2. it comes with a non-negligible complexity cost to the language (e.g. what if you do multiple inheritance, what code gets called at object construction etc)
You probably don't want to end up with a language that implements all ideas that are good in some context. Especially you don't want to have different mechanisms for achieving the same thing.
2 replies →