>it also has many aspects I find problematic
Could you share those?
Not trying to argue, just curious on the perspective of a C veteran, as someone who’s just starting with lower level languages.
>it also has many aspects I find problematic
Could you share those?
Not trying to argue, just curious on the perspective of a C veteran, as someone who’s just starting with lower level languages.
Mostly the advantages a listed for C: stability, portability, simplicity, fast compilation times could all in reverse also be considered disadvantages of Rust. I am also not a fan of monomorphization, not of static linking, and not of having many dependencies out of a large uncurated pile of many projects. I also think Rust is not pragmatic enough. Overall though, my main issue is complexity of the language which I think goes in the wrong direction - this may be ok if the alternative is C++, but if you prefer C to C++ then Rust is equally unappealing. At the same time I think the advantages of Rust are exaggerated. I still agree memory safety is important, I just think Rust is not an ideal approach.
C strings (it's almost an exaggeration to say that C has strings) and "just never make any mistakes bro" based memory management come to mind.
With LLMs becoming so good at coding, "just never make any mistake" is also becoming easier. I usually write my own code because I don't like the coding style of LLMs, but on more than one occasion now they have proven very useful as code reviewers and bug hunters.
We were talking about Rust issues. But yes, C should have a proper string type. But as long as it does not have a better standardized string type, it is possible to define your own (or use a library).
Absolutely. Even when I preferred C over C++ (a long time ago), it was "but with a string library".