• LANIK2000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    15 days ago

    There’s been plenty of interop options between C++ and just about anything for decades. If languages like D, that made it piss easy, weren’t gonna change people’s minds, nothing can. Ditching C++ is the only way forward.

    • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      15 days ago

      Interop between Rust and C++ is pretty bad actually - I can understand wanting to avoid that.

      However I still agree. I can’t see opt-in mechanisms like this moving the needle.

      • Ephera@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        15 days ago

        I’m a bit surprised that it’s supposed to be this bad, given that Mozilla uses it in Firefox and there’s the whole CXX toolchain.

        Granted, Rust was not designed from the ground up to be C+±like, but I’m really not sure that’s a good idea anyways.
        Wanting bug-free programs without wanting functional programming paradigms is a bit like:

        Of course, if we’re able to migrate a lot of old C++ codebases to a slightly better standard relatively easily, then that is still something…

      • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        15 days ago

        I gave C++ and D as an example. A language that for all intents and purposes is irrelevant despite being exactly what everyone wanted, something like Java/C#, but with no compromise and direct bindings to C/C++. And why I’m more apologetic to the idea of something more drastically different like Rust as opposed to another touched up clone of C.