Genuinely curious what these constant changes are. In fact I don’t feel they’re moving fast enough to give us improvements to core.
replyIt was changing quickly in the earliest releases, about 10 years ago. Like one day I pulled our repo and there was new "?" syntax, but that was a feature I'd been wanting anyway.
replyEdit: Oh, async/await was a bigger and more recent one, 2019. I've heard that this wasn't an easy decision for them but was kinda needed.
A few years in between releases with a sane versioning system seems fine to me. If you don’t want new features don’t build with that new toolchain.
replyIt’s not javascript where you need to support all possible browsers.
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.
replyWould 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
replySame 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.
replyEven 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 (&).
That's an opinion. One you're very welcome to hold, but it's not universal by any means. Lots of people enjoy rust.
replydeleted
reply