Re: Hummmmm
also significant and quite possibly related was the decision to strip out garbage collection and go the full monty on manual memory management. my understanding is that it aims to codify tried and tested safe memory practices such as RAII by baking them into the language semantics (‘borrow’ for example).
it is NOT a diss on C/C++ as such. rather you could consider it an homage, where it borrows the ideas that drove the success of those languages (including tasking the programmer with understanding system language complexities). but tries to use the 50 yrs since K&R to simplify where possible, trim where iffy (I’m mostly thinking inheritance here). but, mostly, aggressively force good memory practice at the language/compiler, rather than linting level.
I don’t see the world ready to ditch C/C++ yet. but one attribute of a highly skilled programmer is the ability to learn new languages/concepts and be open to innovation, rather than reflectively insist that all must remain stasis. this was true 30 yrs ago, when I was told MVS+COBOL would rule forever. 20 yrs ago when it was client server. 10 yrs ago when Java/J2EE was the one language to rule them all.
C has had a tremendous run. It may still. But discounting that it can ever be improved on is a mug’s game. Even if Rust itself does not turn out to be promised land.
i’ve dabbled in C and enjoyed it. wish I had time with Rust.
(p.s. may I respectfully suggest dropping “super lang” and the like? our industry is so full of hype that it, unless meant sarcastically it triggers skepticism)
Biting the hand that feeds IT
