Comment by einpoklum
6 months ago
> Between Rust and Zig, the problems of C++ have been solved much more elegantly
Those languages occupy different points in the design space than C++. And thus, in the general sense, neither of them, nor their combination, is "C++ with the problems solved". I know very little Rust and even less Zig. But I do know that there are various complaints about Rust, which are different than the kinds of complaints you get about C++ - not because Rust is bad, just because it's different in significant ways.
> It is so objectively horrible in every capacity
Oh, come now. You do protest too much... yes, it has a lot of warts. And it keeps them, since almost nothing is ever removed from the language. And still, it is not difficult to write very nice, readable, efficient, and safe C++ code.
> it is not difficult to write very nice, readable, efficient, and safe C++ code
That's a fine case of Stockholm Syndrome you've got there. In reality, it is hard. The language fights you every step of the way. That's because the point in the design space C++ occupies is a uniquely stupid one. It wants to have it's cake and eat it too. The pipe-dream behind C++ is that you can write code in an expressive manner and magically have it also be performant. If you want fast code, you have to be explicit about many things. C++ ties itself in knots trying to be implicitly explicit about those things, and the result is just plain harder to reason about. If you want code that's safe and fast, you go with Rust. If you want code that's easy and fast, you go with Zig. If you want code that's easy and safe you go with some GCed lang. Then if you want code that's easy, safe, and fast, you pick C++ and get code which might be fast. You cannot have all three things. Many other langues find an appropriate balance of these three traits to be worthwhile, but C++ does not. It's been 40 years since the birth of C++ and they are only just now trying to figure out how to make it compile well.