On 03/03/14 06:06 PM, Steve Klabnik wrote: > Oh, Patrick, I slightly mis-read what you said. Yes, that was the intention. > >> I think official documentation shouldn't be directly trying to "sell" Rust >> against other languages, > > While I agree, comparing against things we already know is a powerful > way to learn. I _do_ think that we shouldn't say "C++ is terrible," > because it's not, but I do feel that not making some references to > other languages is basically impossible.
I think documentation comparing Rust to C++ is fine, but it should be written from a neutral perspective. That means doing an apples to apples comparison rather than showing the safe feature in Rust and the unsafe feature in C++, when both variants exist in both languages. Type-checked lifetimes on references and type-checked move semantics are examples of true safety improvements over C++. They are not a panacea as they prevent expressing many safe patterns, even when the safety is obvious to a human or a more complex type-checking algorithm. If you're not familiar with writing in a modern dialect of C++11 with similar idioms to Rust, then I don't think writing articles comparing the languages is fair. Rust doesn't bring anything new to the table when it comes to destructors, allocators or smart pointers. It's still playing catch-up to C++11 and Boost in these areas.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
