alt Hacker News> Choosing "All correct programs compile" (the other option was "No incorrect programs compile", you can't have both …
This is really the important distinction between C++ and Rust.
In my opinion, it seems easier to complement the former to catch issues afterwards (like this article) than it is to design a language that does not require you to jump through hoops to get something correct to compile.
I hope programming language design progresses to a state that makes my point invalid, but the “bro rust is easier than C++” gaslighting culture does not help.
Replies
> In my opinion, it seems easier to complement the former to catch issues afterwards (like this article)
Fil-C of course can't magically fix your incorrect program. It never had any defined meaning, but the compiled executable does something and Fil-C will ensure that if the thing it does involves say, a use-after-free at runtime now it exits reporting the error, but it can't fix the fact it's nonsense, that's not their purview.
There's no point in hoping that somehow Programming Languages will overturn Mathematics. I mean, I can't blame you for trying, Bjarne Stroustrup is a professor and still seems to think that should be attempted, but it's futile. We're definitely talking "Why can't I extinguish the sun with water?" level thinking.
Obviously I can't speak to your own experience but for me certainly Rust is easier than C++.
I'm quite experienced at C++ and not that experienced in Rust... but I believe that writing correct Rust is easier than writing correct C++. People get C++ to compile alright, but it often has problems at runtime. You need to know what you are doing in both, but C++ allows you to compile with certain classes of bugs anyway. Even experts still occasionally introduce bugs in C++ that Rust wouldn't allow.