It’s funny because I get the magic impression from c++ but not from rust. Stuff like copy semantics in C++ is so absurd. Rust is explicit and by design not particularly magical.
I agree, and let's not even start with operator overloading. Rust on the other hand seems to be a safe but also rather explicit language (a good thing not just for system programming).
it is not less magicy, rust is more magicy. which is why i don’t want it and why i think we don’t need it. a new language cannot abstract you from the machine or OS you write software for.
at least c++ doesn't force constructs onto you.
remember java? that language was a fad too that didnt' go anywhere, because it forced object-oriented programming onto the user.
I agree java forces a set of constructs, but it's a clear win for c++ - it has far too many constructs that interact in incredibly subtle and complex ways. And it will only get worse over time as they accumulate. At least I can obtain a fairly good mental model for what Java does without being a wizard.
I remember, it is running on all the mobile phones around the house, on the TV, on the blueray player, and apparently Amazon needs it to deliver my packages, Netflix to manage the next movie I want to watch,...
ah yes, it runs on a lot of mobile phones, and app developers cannot get consistent performance out of all those different phones, thanks to java and the Shit OS that runs on them, which shall remain unnamed.
i worked for a startup once that put a java based GUI on top of some C code and used the JNI. the endless issues with java bankrupted the company as the clients who were supposed to adopt the solution refused to deal with the sub par performance and reliability.
java and that OS using java are poor solutions and the idea that you can get consistent performance out of a variety of phones running an OS incorporating java is retarded. at least at Apple they know what they are doing and never made that mistake.
