Comments by "Anony Mousse" (@anon_y_mousse) on "Rust is Killing C++" video.

  1. While my main language is C, and that's certainly not going anywhere, I've been keeping up my skills in about 10 other languages. As I've been writing compilers and other such programs for the majority of the past 25 years, I see things from a different perspective than other developers. The way I see it is that C++ and Rust are basically the same language with all of the same solutions, except that Rust chose defaults that directly oppose C++'s chosen defaults, and it chose a syntax which is less consistent and to my mind uglier, and they chose to prevent certain types of solutions based on them merely seeming hinky. So while C++ by default isn't necessarily considered safe, the programmer can write their code correctly and even take extra steps to ensure that their code is safer for others to extend their work. However, tooling has existed for decades now which enables programmers to be sloppy and check their work the way `rustc` does, and even add on extra checks that `rustc` doesn't do. Also, the 70% figure is an unwitting lie on Microsoft's part because they're expressing the effect, not the cause. The cause of at least 95% of all bugs, in any user facing software anyway, is that of a failure to check user input. Inadequate and/or incomplete checks are still a failure to check user input.
    1