Rust vs. C++: A Conversation on Language Design and Evolution
By[Your Name]
In a recent episode of the Software Engineering Daily podcast,hosted by Kevin Ball, Steve Klabnik (Rust core team member) and Herb Sutter (C++ standards committee member) engaged in a fascinating discussion about thesimilarities, differences, and evolution of Rust and C++.
The Quest for the Perfect Language
Klabnik highlighted Rust’s unique approach,drawing inspiration from less popular but widely recognized ideas in the programming language landscape. He emphasized Rust’s memory safety as a key differentiator, while Sutter focused on the concept of Zero-Overhead Abstraction, where higher-level expressions come atminimal cost.
Klabnik echoed Sutter’s point, emphasizing that Rust’s type system enables zero-cost abstractions: [Klabnik] Basically, the more you can express in the type system, the less you needto check at runtime.
However, Sutter acknowledged that not all abstractions are zero-cost. He cited exceptions and runtime types in C++ as examples where the compiler always offers the option to disable them: [Sutter] If you look at the reason, it’s because these two features can be better hand-coded. Or even if you don’t use them, you pay for them.
This conversation highlights the inherent subjectivity in language design, influenced by individual preferences and philosophies. As Sutter concluded, We haven’t reached a point where one language can be the perfect language.
Scope and Applications
Regarding the usecases for both languages, Sutter pointed out their shared goal, with mature ecosystems and thread safety guarantees potentially influencing one’s choice over the other.
Klabnik emphasized Rust’s increasing popularity for building web services, even within large companies: [Klabnik] For example, Cloudflare is using Rust code astheir backend. They power 10% of internet traffic. Other companies […] have some things written in Python, and then they rewrite them in Rust. They end up saving thousands of servers in their cloud bill.
Sutter highlighted C++’s ability to control time and space, along with the rich tool ecosystembuilt around it over three decades. Rust, being a relatively young language, still has room to grow in this regard.
Conclusion
The conversation between Klabnik and Sutter offers valuable insights into the design philosophies and evolution of Rust and C++. While both languages share common goals, their unique features and strengths cater to different needsand application domains. As both languages continue to evolve, it will be interesting to observe how their features and ecosystems adapt to the ever-changing landscape of software development.
References:
- Software Engineering Daily Podcast: [Link to Podcast Episode]
Views: 0