Is Rust better than C/C++ ?

Published Date: 2024/04/17 by: DaVieS

Rust is relatively new programming language which offers full memory management and garbage collection, while C/C++ already has a decent history and considered as "you better to know what you are doing otherwise the program will crash or produce errors". However the same aplies to Rust too.

There is a big misunderstanding about programming. 

Programming is more than learn how to do. You need talents, programming requires very high level of discipline, logic and analytics and more skills... 

Most of the people does not have those talent, therefore they might never be a good programmers, so they might have to pick an easier, fool-proof language that they can use, safely.

Most of the developers does not even know a thing about how computers work, I mean just a basics, like so a 32bit integer can hold up 2^32 = 4294967296 value if it unsigned. If we divide this large number by 1024 three times, that would be represent the number as 4. Thats why the 32bit operating systems does not really supports more RAM than 4GB. Now it makes sense.

A C / C++ developer should know this, otherwise their program will poorly designed and wont work.
Rust enable you to do something that you are not understand completely and the result still okayish.

Rust using crates to load libraries into your project, like openSSL (which is still mostly C even in Rust), so if you are lucky then some part of your software already been made.

So Rust is a good alternative to anyone who does not want to dive into machine-level.

But the recent political aspect such as C/C++ is bad because of errors and should be destroyed is BAD.
This would not be solved if just simply replaced with Rust or something. Because errors always come from developers. Enabling users to make software without a required knowledge always leads to errors.

Most of the Operating Systems made of C/C++, MacOS, Linux, Windows to name a few.
C/C++ developers dont want to switch to Rust and wont be, because C/C++ syntax based on how the machine works. People who hates C/C++ because they are never had a required skills to handle it can't wait to disappear or being replaced. This is wrong and selfish.

I rather Implementing LUA or squirrel-lang into C/C++ if I want quick and safe development process than using Rust, so I get something that even better.

If we replace the low-level part with Rust, like kernels. Rust become more vulnerable, because you have to use low-level APIs and calls such as C/C++ does. Therefore Rust is not a competitor of C/C++, but Java.

C/C++ is a core language, forcing it to replace is an attack on freedom and merely bullshit, unfeasible.
Also Rust is not generally faster than C/C++, only if we comparing a 20year old C++ code against week old Rust code.

However Rust can replace Java.

So the answer is: NO, Rust not better than C/C++.