No one is saying that . C++ will obviously never go away, the same way that APL will never go away. But what is questioned here is whether it will actually be a _relevant_ skill in future times to come.
To simply say "it will be yet another tool!" is just a value-less assertion.
> But shunning any conversation about PL advancements because alternatives have them and C++ doesn't is immature and unproductive.
Who is doing that, either?
My personal opinion is that the language who eventually becomes most relevant will be the one with the _fewest_ PL advancements, and that will be a sad thing, but is life as usual. Or what was popularly considered a PL advancement last decade will just be seen as a side step in the next. Again, the usual...
> > But shunning any conversation about PL advancements because alternatives have them and C++ doesn't is immature and unproductive.
>
> Who is doing that, either?
Unfortunately many. You can even see these comments on HN.
Sometimes people even get angry over the whole RIIR stuff, or if Rust gets introduced into a codebase, and the project moves away from C++. It's like they ignore the listed reasonings the maintainer explained completely.
Or when people speak about memory safety people pivot it into a general security conversation, ignoring the merits of the borrowing system.
If you speak of the benefits of Rust enums (or Algebraic data types in general sometimes, sadly) it gets called "glorified tagged enums" (or syntactic sugar for them).
People saying "well boost has a library for that" and talking about beast asio to compare it to Rust async, etc.
Or saying C++ can do have the same or similar value ownerships semantic through shared_ptr/unique_ptr when that's simply not true.
Or when people say "well standard library uses unsafe" (without even knowing what "unsafe" in Rust means, I might add)
Uh there's so many other misconstructions or misconceptions that I've seen, but I don't go around collecting them so I can't really remember more from the top of my head.
Look at the Chromium discussion when the devs decided to introduce Rust, or the recent Fish shell announcement, or when Linux decided to add Rust. Full of "but C++..." shills who haven't even contributed to the projects
> My personal opinion is that the language who eventually becomes most relevant will be the one with the _fewest_ PL advancements, and that will be a sad thing, but is life as usual. Or what was popularly considered a PL advancement last decade will just be seen as a side step in the next. Again, the usual...
I disagree because I think nature (and humans) seek to reduce the amount of energy spent on activities for desired outcomes. Ie, we want to optimise the process, and we are lazy. Rust saves me mental and emotional energy. Since changing jobs (from C++ to Rust) by burnout has been recovering and I'm feeling more energised after work too. And the current job is arguably more straining as it has more responsibility. I don't think Rust is quite there yet either, but it feels like a step in the right direction.
No one is saying that . C++ will obviously never go away, the same way that APL will never go away. But what is questioned here is whether it will actually be a _relevant_ skill in future times to come.
To simply say "it will be yet another tool!" is just a value-less assertion.
> But shunning any conversation about PL advancements because alternatives have them and C++ doesn't is immature and unproductive.
Who is doing that, either?
My personal opinion is that the language who eventually becomes most relevant will be the one with the _fewest_ PL advancements, and that will be a sad thing, but is life as usual. Or what was popularly considered a PL advancement last decade will just be seen as a side step in the next. Again, the usual...