Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: ???Microsoft Azure CTO Mark Russinovich: C/C++ should be deprecated???
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 12:35:39 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <875yhdevec.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <tgfn8d$1sr8e$1@dont-email.me> <tghakg$b0m$1@gioia.aioe.org> <871qs3za1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tgiabp$29fjk$1@dont-email.me> <tgjn3l$14e6$1@gioia.aioe.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="6f3ec2dac4dea20474d57d340bf017a4"; logging-data="2770231"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+zU4ASWJju+HGXSfXH3ctg"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Tlh8IgkyHZT+NvHvCaKf7EsGW18= sha1:MrRrjxUQphgt7qfXGIgr7gcJHN4=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:167830 comp.lang.c++:86544

Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
> In comp.lang.c++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> Rust is supposed to be /better/ than C.  It is supposed to look at how C 
>> has evolved over the decades, and pick a better starting point.  So 
>> saying C is as bad, or worse, is not an excuse for poor design choices 
>> in Rust.
>
> That's exactly what I meant. C is something like 45 years old, Rust is
> something like 10 years old, and supposed to be a more modern and better
> designed language taking advantage of 50+ years of experience on how a
> good programming language should be like.
>
> Answering the criticism "this 10yo language has this design problem" with
> "oh yeah? Well, this 45yo language also has the same problem!" makes
> no sense. Newer "better" language are not supposed to copy the mistakes
> of the past. It's supposed to fix/improve on them.
>
> I'm not saying that eg. C++ is significantly better. The
> "brevity-over-clarity" mentality can oftentimes be seen throughout
> the standard library.
>
> For example, there's literally no reason why it should be called
> 'shared_ptr' instead of 'shared_pointer'. I can't think of any advantage
> in shortening "pointer" like that.
>
> But not to be bested, Rust makes it better: 'Rc'.
>
> Because why not.

"Rc" stands for "Reference Counted Smart Pointer".  It's not just a
random 2-letter sequence.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */