Comment by anotherhue

7 hours ago

Safety is good.

That is why most of the world has not been using c/c++ for decades.

  • I'm not on the Rust bandwagon, but statements like this make absolutely no sense.

    A lot of software was written in C and C++ because they were the only option for decades. If you couldn't afford garbage collection and needed direct control of the hardware there wasn't much of a choice. Had their been "safer" alternatives, it's possible those would have been used instead.

    It's only been in the last few years we've seen languages emerge that could actually replace C/C++ with projects like Rust, Zig and Odin. I'm not saying they will, or they should, but just that we actually have alternatives now.

    • At least on PC world you could be using Delphi, for example, or Turbo Pascal before it.

      Also I would refrain me to list all other alternatives.

  • That's not true when the topic is operating system kernels.

    • OS kernels? Everything from numpy to CUDA to NCCL is using C/C++ (doing all the behind the scene heavy lifting), never mind the classic systems software like web browsers, web servers, networking control plane (the list goes on).

      7 replies →

  • Most of the world uses other languages because they’re easier, not because they’re safer.

    • They're easier because, amongst other improvements, they are safer.