C++ vs Rust vs Go?

Posted Jun 11, 2016 4:47 UTC (Sat) by viro (subscriber, #7872)
In reply to: C++ vs Rust vs Go? by cryptoknight
Parent article: Grover: Why Rust for Low-level Linux programming?

Umm... According to you, those guidelines "can be verified statically at compile time, the same kind of safeties provided by Rust can be had from C++". OTOH, according to Stroustrup et.al., right on the page you are refering to, "The sets of rules have not been thoroughly checked for completeness, consistency, or enforceability". Both are direct quotes, and no offense, but I suspect that the authors of those guidelines have better idea concerning their state...

IOW, it sounds interesting, but you seem to be seriously overselling that.

C++ vs Rust vs Go?

Posted Jun 11, 2016 7:36 UTC (Sat) by cryptoknight (guest, #108170) [Link]

As I said, I don't have much experience with the guidelines personally yet, but the section you quoted sounds like a pretty standard disclaimer for a work in progress. My statements concerning safety guarantees mainly come from watching the CppCon 2015 presentations from Bjarne Stroustrup and Herb Sutter where the guidelines effort was first announced. The safety guarantees provided by the guidelines were the main topic of those talks, and they were compared directly to those provided by Rust. Given the circumstances, of course, it is certainly possible that the authors/speakers were doing a bit of selling of their own. Also, both the Visual Studio and Clang teams have begun implementing checkers for the guidelines. So, while they may not be complete or 100% foolproof yet, they seem to be heading in a worthwhile direction.