• mox@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours 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
      2
      ·
      8 hours 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.

      • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 hours 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
          1
          ·
          2 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…