Hacker News Reader

Why do you think C++ committee would be the best people to do the radical and opinionated overhaul?

And given that, if we have people working on Rust, Circle, Carbon etc, what would your idea actually change?

This is my feeling. C++ doesn’t need to be anything more than it is. There’s no void a supposed safe C++ needs to fill; that’s what Rust is doing.

Nah, I disagree. Rust fills the void of "natively compiled safe language". If you need something that's "like C++" (whatever that means to you) but safe, Rust may not work for you. And it's certainly not true that no one needs a safe C++. If someone right now starts a new project in C++ and not Rust it's because that's what they think is best all things considered, not because they don't need memory safety.

> If someone right now starts a new project in C++ and not Rust it's because that's what they think is best all things considered, not because they don't need memory safety.

I guess most reasons are 'use what we know well', and 'use what we have tooling for'. But there's probably some others.

And also a common reason: use the language with features that Rust does not have.

on the view that their interests are to grow & preserve c++

competitors will compete

Reply on news.ycombinator.com