Unless he means that Rust should be used on projects where the Rust compiler is available for all relevant platforms and C and C++ can be used otherwise, I disagree.
In fact, until LLVM is replaced, C++ will probably be the language of choice for new languages. Even `rustc` requires a C++ bootstrap for that purpose.
There are also other important C++ and C libraries that will continue to mean C and C++ may be better choices than Rust in certain cases.
And don't get me started on embedded.
Also, that doesn't even matter when the purpose is a hobby project (such as mine) where the programmer has no interest in Rust (such as me).
I like how Trevor Jim put it [1] better:
> If you decide to write your project in C/C++ you must have a plan for handling the inevitable memory corruption in advance. Anything else is malpractice.
This is possible to do. I've released a non-trivial program that has had no known memory bugs ever since 1.0 on 2018-10-26. It is written in C. And I challenge anyone to find one in any release since then. You might find one, but I think it will be tough.
In other words, it's possible to put C and C++ on the same footing as Rust when it comes to memory bugs; after all, even Rust is not perfect there.
Yes, it takes more effort. A lot more effort. For my hobby projects, that works fine because I'd rather work in C with the extra effort than in Rust.
Oh, and it's possible to make C as good as Rust: I've got macros to do automatic bounds checking. I've got RAII and stack traces. I've got structured concurrency, which will give the same capabilities as the Rust borrow checker if you adjust your coding style. And all this in portable C11.
So no, Rust is not the end-all be-all of languages. Sorry.
Rant about absolutist opinion over.
But seriously, use Rust if it's available for your target platforms, and you have no other preference.
[1]: http://trevorjim.com/using-an-unsafe-language-is-a-design-fl...
In fact, until LLVM is replaced, C++ will probably be the language of choice for new languages. Even `rustc` requires a C++ bootstrap for that purpose.
There are also other important C++ and C libraries that will continue to mean C and C++ may be better choices than Rust in certain cases.
And don't get me started on embedded.
Also, that doesn't even matter when the purpose is a hobby project (such as mine) where the programmer has no interest in Rust (such as me).
I like how Trevor Jim put it [1] better:
> If you decide to write your project in C/C++ you must have a plan for handling the inevitable memory corruption in advance. Anything else is malpractice.
This is possible to do. I've released a non-trivial program that has had no known memory bugs ever since 1.0 on 2018-10-26. It is written in C. And I challenge anyone to find one in any release since then. You might find one, but I think it will be tough.
In other words, it's possible to put C and C++ on the same footing as Rust when it comes to memory bugs; after all, even Rust is not perfect there.
Yes, it takes more effort. A lot more effort. For my hobby projects, that works fine because I'd rather work in C with the extra effort than in Rust.
Oh, and it's possible to make C as good as Rust: I've got macros to do automatic bounds checking. I've got RAII and stack traces. I've got structured concurrency, which will give the same capabilities as the Rust borrow checker if you adjust your coding style. And all this in portable C11.
So no, Rust is not the end-all be-all of languages. Sorry.
Rant about absolutist opinion over.
But seriously, use Rust if it's available for your target platforms, and you have no other preference.
[1]: http://trevorjim.com/using-an-unsafe-language-is-a-design-fl...