Rust doesn’t allow type inference in function signatures, c++ does with auto.
IIRC, they recommended against using it, because of -you guessed it- compile time.
It’s more than 10 years old. It has stable syntax, big standard library, big library ecosystem, plenty of rust programs already in production.
If by “evolving” you mean “changing”, I don’t think that is an issue at all. At most, they add features. They don’t change or remove. And with the editions system, it should be no issue.
If by “evolving” you mean “improving”, then I don’t see how that could ever be an issue.
I don’t get it. What’s wrong with constexpr? It’s vastly preferable to macros due to type safety, and const due to compile-time optimization.
I don’t get it either. OP might be angry at compile time (Couldn’t be worse than rust)
Rust doesn’t allow type inference in function signatures, c++ does with auto. IIRC, they recommended against using it, because of -you guessed it- compile time.
Yeah, Rust already has major compile time issues.
TBH I thought it was for refactoring type safety. Making sure that the type is understood and not ready to just change wildly accidentally.
I thought that was part of the point - simplifying refactoring.
Not fair to compare it to the very immature Rust.
I do love rust. But I do like making fun of it too.
Although I don’t see how rust is immature? Unless I missed the joke?
Well, compared to grandpa C++ over there…
It’s very young for a programming language, and is still rapidly evolving.
It’s more than 10 years old. It has stable syntax, big standard library, big library ecosystem, plenty of rust programs already in production.
If by “evolving” you mean “changing”, I don’t think that is an issue at all. At most, they add features. They don’t change or remove. And with the editions system, it should be no issue.
If by “evolving” you mean “improving”, then I don’t see how that could ever be an issue.
It’s only a third of the age of C amirite 🙄