I didn't understand why rust and go are natural alternatives to C. Wouldn't C++ be a more natural option? (Despite the fact that both go and rust are developed by third party companies)
I did a lot of C++ years ago, so maybe things have changed since then, but I think Rust and Go addressed a lot of the design flubs of C++.
My experiences getting things to compile across gcc and visual c++, dealing with strings (especially Microsoft's WCHAR), reliable integer sizes (pre stdint.h), and debugging templates were not things I would wish on anyone.
Re-doing some of my side projects in Go and Rust was a lot more enjoyable. I could focus on what I was doing instead of trying to work around deficiencies in the language and its libraries.
I still don't get it. Can't it be done in c++ via appropriate data structures? I mean, it's not like Go is magic, at the end I suppose Go would be doing just that. As far as I know the main reason people opt for Go over C++ are the compiling times...
You can write safe C++, if you're careful, and everyone you work with is careful, all the time. Judicious use of features can make your code more safe, but they can never make it actually safe.
Rust and Go, in various different ways (and to various degrees), make it actually safe.
If C++ is "(nearly) a superset of C" why is the C++ standard twice the size of C standard? Of course if we take that 0.505.. ≈ 1, then it is indeed a (nearly) superset.
