While your argument may be true for languages such as Java and Go, Rust is a different beast entirely. Where the former are essentially C or C++ with some opinionated changes based on whatever is fancy at the time, Rust is based around linear logic and is thereby backed by solid math. The von Neumann model of C has no such backing. This is what I mean when I say fundamentally flawed.
This was evident e.g. in the slowness with which concurrent programming was adopted, single-threaded performance having stayed a primary concern for gaming systems.
In contrast, initial predictions of MC system design spoke of 64 cores on a CPU by 2012. The lack of compatible software made this rapid scaling of core count unmarketable. This was shown e.g. in the AMD vs Intel debate, where Intel CPUs were better for gaming despite the fact that AMD's higher core count provided higher overall instruction throughput at a lower price.
I love working in C++ (starting from C++14 anyway) and will use it whenever I have a good excuse to do so, but I cannot deny a better, more elegant design when I see one.
I will however, fully disagree with the notion that more features makes a language better. More features means more complexity, which in itself is bad. Of course it might increase the expressive power of a language, but that is just one thing making up the total balance.
This, however, is a matter of personal preference.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
While your argument may be true for languages such as Java and Go, Rust is a different beast entirely. Where the former are essentially C or C++ with some opinionated changes based on whatever is fancy at the time, Rust is based around linear logic and is thereby backed by solid math. The von Neumann model of C has no such backing. This is what I mean when I say fundamentally flawed.
This was evident e.g. in the slowness with which concurrent programming was adopted, single-threaded performance having stayed a primary concern for gaming systems.
In contrast, initial predictions of MC system design spoke of 64 cores on a CPU by 2012. The lack of compatible software made this rapid scaling of core count unmarketable. This was shown e.g. in the AMD vs Intel debate, where Intel CPUs were better for gaming despite the fact that AMD's higher core count provided higher overall instruction throughput at a lower price.
I love working in C++ (starting from C++14 anyway) and will use it whenever I have a good excuse to do so, but I cannot deny a better, more elegant design when I see one.
I will however, fully disagree with the notion that more features makes a language better. More features means more complexity, which in itself is bad. Of course it might increase the expressive power of a language, but that is just one thing making up the total balance.
This, however, is a matter of personal preference.