The main thing I push back against is the idea that anyone can write safe C++ at scale. If you know you’re writing code that will go wrong re. memory safety on some input and you are intentionally OK with that, I can’t really argue with it.
-
-
Aside: I see this sometimes from experienced game developers. Less experienced game devs say that they can write safe modern C++, which is obviously bogus. More experienced ones often say they know with C++ they’ll be shipping bugs, but its advantages outweigh the cost of bugs.
1 reply 1 retweet 10 likes -
The latter argument is actually fairly reasonable. (Which doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to make Rust as suitable as possible for them now and in the future, of course.)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
My spicy take would be that, even if you don’t like Rust, designing and implementing your own language to write your large program in would be cheaper than trying to write C++ at scale
3 replies 0 retweets 25 likes -
What language should I implement my own language in?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
-
-
Replying to @slava_pestov @kastiglione and
Anything but C++, basically. In some seriousness, If your bootstrap compiler/interpreter is a webpage, that has significant portability and ease of onboarding advantages
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jckarter @slava_pestov and
Anything but C++, except hopefully something that can interface to C++ so you can use LLVM for code gen. (Unless you just generate LLVM IR.)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @eschaton @slava_pestov and
For many purposes, targeting LLVM is probably better as a long term goal than an immediate one. like
@pcwalton said, there are lighterweight alternatives like cranelift and cretonne these days. LLVM also has a reasonable C API these days1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
(Nit: Cranelift and Cretonne are the same thing…it got renamed)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.