I once shared that I had a bad first experience with Rust and no less than four Rust developers arrived to inform me that I was either hallucinating, or bad at programming, or both.

I haven't had this much fun winding up a sensitive community since I shared how I really felt about Java Spring, in it's heyday.

I tend to stick to interpreted languages so I can't weigh in on the Rust vs. C++ debate, but I know that if you're trying to make headway against a language as entrenched as C++ is you've got to get loud.

As a rust dev myself... It's my right to be obnoxious

True. All just inefficient ways of harnessing fusion power.

You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.

Hmm hydro isn't, is it?

We need to make a black hole bomb, that would be the first new type of energy. No fusion, no hot water!

Proceeds to spend 3 hours bug fixing until you realize that you spelled list as lsit

personally I just can't get over the syntax to even try rust. to me it just looks terrible. I know not everybody agrees though. that and having even longer compile times and no mature gui framework

Word! The whole snafu with co_routines has been quite the laughable show. It would have been trivially sortable if C++ did something like what PHP did, using a symbol to absolutely disambiguate what is a variable and what is not. That way eg.: await is a keyword, $await is a variable (perhaps a functor).

To make it even better, $ is already unused in C++!

That was my first take as well, coming back to C++ in recent years after a long hiatus. But once I really got into it I realized that those pointer types still exist (conceptually) in C, but they're undeclared and mostly unmanaged by the compiler. The little bit of automagic management that does happen is hidden from the programmer.

I feel like most of the complex overhead in modern C++ is actually just explaining in extra detail about what you think is happening. Where a C compiler would make your code work in any way possible, which may or may not be what you intended, a C++ compiler will kick out errors and let you know where you got it wrong. I think it may be a bit like JavaScript vs TypeScript: the issues were always there, we just introduced mechanisms to point them out.

You're also mostly free to use those C-style pointers in C++. It's just generally considered bad practice.

Smart pointers model ownership. Instead of (maybe) a comment telling you if you have to free/delete a returned pointer this information is encoded into the type itself. But that's not all, this special type even handles the whole deleting part once it goes away.

Since they model ownership you should only use them when ownership should be expressed. Namely something that returns a pointer to a newly allocated thing should be a std::unique_ptr because the Callie has ownership of that memory. If they want to share it (multiple ownership of the object) there's a cheap conversion to std::shared_ptr.

How about a function that takes in an object cause it wants to look at it? Well that doesn't have anything to do with ownership so make it a raw pointer, or better yet a reference to avoid nullability.

What about when you've got a member function that wants to return a pointer to some memory the object owns? You guessed it baby raw pointer (or again reference if it'll never be null).