Comment by jjmarr
6 hours ago
C++ almost never removes features because of the ABI compatibility guarantees. Programs compiled with older versions of the standard can be linked against newer versions.
This is allegedly because in the 80s companies would write software, fire the programmers, and throw the source code away once it compiled.
Fixing syntax by definition does not affect the ABI. And Rust has shown that both ABI and API compatibility can be achieved in the presence of several "versions" (editions) of the language in the same build.
Rust has shown that it’s yet another language that kind of sort of addresses 3% of the issues c/c++ has, tops.
Probably because like 95% of C++'s issues are self-inflicted and don't need to be addressed if you use a different language in the first place, and 1% of them are fundamentally unsolvable by any language.
I really don't like C++ but it's hard to come up with thirty-odd times as many other terrible problems as the ones Rust addresses.
lol. A functions module system that’s easy to use and adopted? A package manager? A well implemented hash table? Fast compile times? Effectively no segfaults? Effectively no memory leaks? Comparatively no race condition bugs? A benchmark and unit test framework baked into the language? Auto optimization of the layout of structs? No UB?
I don’t know what you’re counting as “3% of the issues” but if those are the 3%, they sound like massive productivity and safety wins that’s not existed in a language with a similar performance profile to C/C++.