On Sat, 2017-12-23 at 11:33 +0200, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: > Russel Winder wrote: > > > I think we are now in a world where Rust is the zero cost > > abstraction > > language to replace C and C++, except for those who are determined > > to > > stay with C++ and evolve it. > > sorry, but it is not zero cost. we have alot of C and C++ code. > converting > it to Rust is not zero cost at all. and using it as-is won't make > our > codebases any better.
I think we are using different meanings of "zero cost abstraction". […] > > what i want to say (and didn't, as usual) is that Rust is not zero > cost due > to exisiting codebases. either you have to invest alot of time and > efforts > to port those codebases, or you have to use both Rust and C/C++, and > suffer > the consequences. Porting code and "zero cost abstraction" are totally separate things, there is no causal relation between them. > […] > > that is, D actually has *no* competitors. if not google and mozco, > people > won't even start talking seriously about Go/Rust. yet even in this > unfair > race, D presence is constantly growing. just wait a little, and > you'll see > a dawn of Rust and Go. and D will be still there, standing strong > and > proud. ;-) Programming language traction is only partly related to any technical arguments. Hugely important is resource and marketing. C++ has Intel and others. Rust has Mozilla and others. Go has Google and others. -- Russel. =========================================== Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part