Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 22:26:48 +0300 From: Rozhuk Ivan <rozhuk.im@gmail.com> To: Eric McCorkle <eric@metricspace.net> Cc: cem@freebsd.org, "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Speculative: Rust for base system components Message-ID: <20181231222648.0a68afd1@rimwks> In-Reply-To: <414c837f-4b06-b6dc-468c-8bbbc8ad8c59@metricspace.net> References: <ca76e5f7-6e59-bd67-144a-90ad66f0252e@metricspace.net> <CAG6CVpV0kxupmkhHiYBT05Yfst6uNtbUyYUzG95Zwcbk9F3K0Q@mail.gmail.com> <414c837f-4b06-b6dc-468c-8bbbc8ad8c59@metricspace.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 12:58:51 -0500 Eric McCorkle <eric@metricspace.net> wrote: > I would debate the kitchen sink claim. For one, Rust benefits from a > solid understanding of type systems that didn't exist when C++ was > created. Proper parameterized types are a significant improvement > over C++ templates (the same holds for Java's generics, but that's > tangential). This alone reduces the complexity of the language (and > its error messages) considerably. While I give C++ slack on the > issue of templates because Somebody Had To Go First, that doesn't > mean I relish the idea of writing C++ code. > Who cares!? Who will support all this staff? I want that programs works, I do not care types, classes and other things. Now most things works, so why we should waste time to rewrite it to more difficult to understand and support languages?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20181231222648.0a68afd1>