Comments by "Vitaly L" (@vitalyl1327) on "Why i think C++ is better than rust" video.

@arianghorbani1305 for some people 2+2 is hard. So what? It means they tried to memorise what 2+2 is, instead of understanding Peano axioms. Simple things are objectively simple. If they're hard for someone, they're either dim, or someone deceived them and gave an incorrect definition of that simple thing, making it needlessly complicated.
16
Including nasal demons. Especially nasal demons.
5
ah, how cute, web coders think that anything that is not web is a "niche". Look, if your precious web suddenly disappears, the world will just become a little better, and that's all. If, say, MCUs disappear, civilisation will collapse.
3
Why do people try to drag Go into a C++/C/Rust discussion? Let Go compete with the other toy languages like Java, C#, Python and JS. It cannot be compared to C++, for it does not fit the niche where C++ is the most useful.
3
@matta5749 sadly (for you), there is an objective measure of complexity. And pointers are among the easiest things on this metric. Those who find them confusing are either genuinely dim, or made a mistake of skipping the basics.
2
There is one thing that make C++ more powerful than Rust in some important use cases: there is a `goto` in C++. More so, a computed goto extension in most of the compilers that matter. No `goto` in rust, meaning - no efficiently compiled DSLs, no fast parsing, no threaded code, nothing.
2
Or, even more likely, MISRA-C.
1
@bopon4090 go is a trash language with a mandatory garbage collector. Who needs languages with garbage collectors, unless they're functional languages and there is a semantic reason for having a GC?
1
@32zim32 radio in your car is likely an SDR. It very much depends on such optimisations.
1
@arianghorbani1305 pointers are objectively easy. Those who have troubles understanding them are either in the wrong place and should go back to gender studies or whatever, or they came from the wrong side and not trying to understand *formalism*, instead they're just follow monkey-see-monkey-do, like a lot (if not most) of the self-taughts do.
1
@matta5749 not understanding what something is for and how it can be used is exactly the consequence of having gaps in fundamental knowledge. Those who skip the basics.unavoidably end up confused. This, and a low IQ, of course.
1
@burnttoast111 true - someone told them it's "hard", and they decided not even to make an effort. I don't have a fit for all recipe of how to break from this cycle.
1
@skeetskeet9403 really? Mind pointing at a single implementation of an indirect threaded code in Rust? I'm not even asking about a direct one. You cannot implement a fast FSM of any kind in Rust, simply for the lack of any tools for expressing irreducible CFG. What else to discuss here? It's a severe limitation, consciously made. It makes Rust unusable for quite a wide range of things.
1
@skeetskeet9403 Nope, you cannot have control flow in between inline assembly blocks (and same limitation applies to C++ too, for obvious reasons). Goto must be supported by the IR, and inline assembly is bypassed as opaque blocks through IR, so it must be a reducible CFG inside.
1
@Sn1per9CZE you have a limited experience and a limited set of tools and methods you're using. Now, try to implement a fast threaded code interpreter. Nope, you cannot do it. Try to implement (e.g., using procedural macros) a fast parser generator. I mean, fast. Not your typical parsing combinators or a large switch. Try to implement, say, an embedded Prolog-like DSL in Rust - again, with as much efficiency as possible, meaning a WAM-like compilation scheme. Goto is mandatory for efficient compilation of anything that end up generating irreducible CFG.
1