Teams will disagree over what toolchain to use, and you will read others' code, so this doesn't dodge the issue. Otherwise there'd be no complaint about C++. I don't think Rust is bloated though, every feature has a very good reason.
Teams will disagree over what toolchain to use, and you will read others' code, so this doesn't dodge the issue. Otherwise there'd be no complaint about C++. I don't think Rust is bloated though, every feature has a very good reason.
Would they disagree, new toolchains work great with old code? And even add 95% of the features to older editions, just not new keywords or inference defaults. I think in C++ people complain about the effort to migrate --std, rather than having to learn variants or concepts. It does add to the complexity of course, and it's useful to agree on a consistent style, I just mean Rust doesn't have the particular issues with everyone having to migrate in lockstep, or anyone needing to for new tools
Same with C++, new standards will support old code. But they'll disagree on using the new features in the new toolchains. Or more likely, they'll just use the new features. So there's no option of sticking to old feature sets, you will encounter the new ones at the very least.
Even with a style guide in C++... Google is known for having one. I was forced to change how I use basic strings multiple times there. They also changed the rules around refs (&).