Rust doesn't allow type inference in function signatures, c++ does with auto. IIRC, they recommended against using it, because of -you guessed it- compile time.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Yeah, Rust already has major compile time issues.

[–] RustyNova@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

TBH I thought it was for refactoring type safety. Making sure that the type is understood and not ready to just change wildly accidentally.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I thought that was part of the point - simplifying refactoring.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world -5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not fair to compare it to the very immature Rust.

[–] RustyNova@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I do love rust. But I do like making fun of it too.

Although I don't see how rust is immature? Unless I missed the joke?

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Well, compared to grandpa C++ over there...

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world -5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It's very young for a programming language, and is still rapidly evolving.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

It's more than 10 years old. It has stable syntax, big standard library, big library ecosystem, plenty of rust programs already in production.

If by "evolving" you mean "changing", I don't think that is an issue at all. At most, they add features. They don't change or remove. And with the editions system, it should be no issue.

If by "evolving" you mean "improving", then I don't see how that could ever be an issue.

[–] anti_antidote@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 day ago

It's only a third of the age of C amirite 🙄