Hacker News Reader

Comment by blastonico | Hacker News Reader

The amount of high performance, production grade, massively tested libraries written in C++ is unbeatable. I will be honest here, it's easier to improve C++ security by implementing a compiler that produces safer C++ (like Typescript to Javascript) than rewriting everything in any other language (Rust, Zig, Odin, whatever).

I mean, could you estimate the cost ($ and time) it would take to rewrite the best audio framework in any other language? (https://juce.com/).

View on HN

Zig is great, it’s not aiming to be a replacement for C++ though. One of the awesome things about Zig is its interoperability with C. In that sense it’s more of a Typescript to C than Rust is to C++. I’m still not sure what I think about Rust personally. In my region of the world I suspect it’ll continue to struggle to find any form of adoption as the C++ people seem to have very little interest in trading their decade long experience for Rust. Zig on the other hand is winning the hearts and minds of most C programmers I know.

I hope Rust succeeds though. I say this more from a change management perspective than anything else. It’s extremely hard for us to find developers who will primarily work with garbage collected languages but occasionally have to work with either C or C++ when bottle necks appear. Rust makes that much easier, or perhaps less dangerous would be a better term. I’m not sure any of the attempts at making C++ more safe to use is going to really succeed in this regard. Maybe, but I nothing within the C++ community seems to pull in that direction so I doubt it. I’d like to mention that I’m aware that Zig isn’t helpful in this regard either as it’s not memory safe.

Zig's interoperability with C really is a stroke of genius. That and the fact that it tries to focus on simplicity with no hidden control flow. It's a fine line to walk, because there's always a tradeoff between abstracting things away to make the code more readable, and tucking potentially critical flaws away out of sight. But so many of C++'s edges come from that hidden control flow, and quirks around things like initialization, ownership, and even things like assignment that less experienced programmers take for granted (if they've ever thought about it at all). And I say that as someone who uses C++17 both professionally and privately, and enjoys the language.

How many total lines of code do you imagine are in these libraries, compared to all their clients? If rewriting the libraries sounds like an unreasonable amount of work in a world where all that client code exists, doesn't that reflect negatively on the readability of C++?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com