> Personally, I think what C++ offers is the same as Rust.
I see this pretty often and don't understand where this idea originates from. We have huge amounts of evidence to the contrary[1], that is generated by developers who likely have more experience with parallelism and memory than anyone in this comments section ("likely"). If the ultimate pedigree don't get it right, keeping in mind that they never have (apart from NASA who disallow threading and allocation), how is there this belief that it is at all possible.
It's the software equivalent of flat-earthing or climate change denial. We have abundant hard evidence supporting the inability for humans to reason about memory allocation, and absolutely zero evidence to the contrary.
Safe Rust eliminates entire categories of bugs. It doesn't eliminate all bugs (including vulnerabilities), so you do need testing, but it does a huge amount more than nothing (C++).
I see this pretty often and don't understand where this idea originates from. We have huge amounts of evidence to the contrary[1], that is generated by developers who likely have more experience with parallelism and memory than anyone in this comments section ("likely"). If the ultimate pedigree don't get it right, keeping in mind that they never have (apart from NASA who disallow threading and allocation), how is there this belief that it is at all possible.
It's the software equivalent of flat-earthing or climate change denial. We have abundant hard evidence supporting the inability for humans to reason about memory allocation, and absolutely zero evidence to the contrary.
Safe Rust eliminates entire categories of bugs. It doesn't eliminate all bugs (including vulnerabilities), so you do need testing, but it does a huge amount more than nothing (C++).
[1]: https://cve.mitre.org/