• mox@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Given how long and widely C++ has been a dominant language, I don’t think anyone can reasonably expect to get rid of all the unsafe code, regardless of approach. There is a lot of it.

    However, changing the proposition from “get good at Rust and rewrite these projects from scratch” to “adopt some incremental changes using the existing tooling and skills you already have” would lower the barrier to entry considerably. I think this more practical approach would be likely to reach far more projects.

    • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      There’s been plenty of interop options between C++ and just about anything for decades. If languages like D, that made it piss easy, weren’t gonna change people’s minds, nothing can. Ditching C++ is the only way forward.

      • mox@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        46 minutes ago

        Unfortunately, I don’t think D is good enough to prove your point. From your follow-up comment:

        A language that for all intents and purposes is irrelevant despite being exactly what everyone wanted,

        As someone who uses D, I can attest that it is not what everyone wanted; at least not yet. Despite all the great things in the language, the ergonomics around actually using it are mediocre at best: Several of its appealing features quickly turn it into a noisy language, error messages are often so obtuse as to be useless (especially with templates and contracts in play), and Phobos (the standard library) is practically made of paper cuts. Also, the only notable async support is a fragile mess, and garbage collection is too deeply embedded into both the stdlib and the ecosystem.

        (To be fair, D could be vastly improved with better defaults and standard library. That might happen in time, as Walter and the other maintainers have shown interest, but it’s just wishful thinking for now.)

        Also, D is an entirely different language from C++, and as such, would require code rewrites in order to bring safety to existing projects. It’s not really comparable to a C++ extension.

      • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        Interop between Rust and C++ is pretty bad actually - I can understand wanting to avoid that.

        However I still agree. I can’t see opt-in mechanisms like this moving the needle.

        • Ephera@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          21 hours ago

          I’m a bit surprised that it’s supposed to be this bad, given that Mozilla uses it in Firefox and there’s the whole CXX toolchain.

          Granted, Rust was not designed from the ground up to be C+±like, but I’m really not sure that’s a good idea anyways.
          Wanting bug-free programs without wanting functional programming paradigms is a bit like:

          Of course, if we’re able to migrate a lot of old C++ codebases to a slightly better standard relatively easily, then that is still something…

        • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          17 hours ago

          I gave C++ and D as an example. A language that for all intents and purposes is irrelevant despite being exactly what everyone wanted, something like Java/C#, but with no compromise and direct bindings to C/C++. And why I’m more apologetic to the idea of something more drastically different like Rust as opposed to another touched up clone of C.