Unioronically which should i learn if i want a good low-level language that isn't total cancer to use for the future...

Rust is fine to read and write.
The real problem is that it enables that retarded webshit mentality: "don't write it yourself, just use a library".
And as a result of that you get 3000+ cargo dependencies for the most basic shit.

>Rust is fine to read and write
lol. people strugge to port to rust basic algorithms.

Rust is cleaner. If you are not introduced to think about memory, referencing, scopes, lifetimes, dynamic allocation vs stack allocation vs static allocation, ... then Rust is imho the best lang to get you started out of {Rust,C,C++}. Plus the build tool is easy and doesn't stay in a way.

Arguments that C++ is more popular is quite irrelevant. It's too much pain in the ass and has too many useless, duplicated/competing and badly designed features that you however have to deal with, plus poor build solutions. It's irrelevant because it's simple to learn new language in course of weeks if you already know to concepts, so you rather prefer something that will introduce it to you well. If you have uni studies in front of you then that's plethora of weeks to migrate your knowledge to C++.

dumb ELS reddirtspacer ellipses user

>Arguments that C++ is more popular is quite irrelevant.
Except that's pretty much what OP asked.
If you don't care about popularity, there are much better languages than both C++ and Rust.

C# if you actually want a job

>If you don't care about popularity, there are much better languages than both C++ and Rust.
provide examples

Rust is tranny infested cargo garbage with no industry support that requires unsafe around itself and all useful code. It fails completely at its goal except for kindergarten problems.

t. rustfag

Cargo is a tool I very much dislike about Rust. Plus the growing changes to type system.
But nobody wants to deal with CMake and GNU Make is just laughable.
For beginner, getting stucked too often on build tool is unfortunate.

Just learn both, i think rust has a bright future and is more fun to write but there are ton of jobs who use C++ and very few who use Rust.

You know what has done enough damage slow computer programs.
-millions of cumulative hours wasted on waiting
-wasting electricity harming the environment

pic related

Attached: maxresdefault_7.jpg (1280x720, 122K)

That's right.
And you think C is the answer? It isn't except it also added trillions of dollars lost in security flaws and debugging.

no but rust is bloat

A meme language that has no support like Rust isn't either

>it's either c or rust

Attached: 1544655093731.jpg (1170x742, 70K)

This, now everything i use is soooo sloooow. I still have my windows 95 et my mac os 9 and they are often more responsive

C++ if you want to be employable.
Rust trannies are literal brainlets, worse than pajeets, their opinion is irrelevant.

t. 8 years C# and 4years C++ wagie.

Rust still lacks a lot. It‘s not going to be a proper alternative to Cpp for years to come and then it would take years to get some actual traction on the job market. Just learn modern C++.

>modern C++
Pls just use javascript if you want a slow and bad language

Ironic when optimized JS is fast as fuck

I really wish it was

What does cpp have to do with js? And how is it „slow“? I swear 90% of this shitty board are just lstm chatbots mindlessly regurgitating buzzphrases and brand/tech names at random.

C++ is ubiquitous, while no one is using Rust.
Don't fall for the Rust meme. Rust proponents keep saying that C++ is complicated, risky, etc . but that's the price to pay to have a high-performance language like C++. It's designed to build powerful, high-performance libraries.

If you want something easier, safer, etc. you'd use Go or Python, not fucking Rust.

Attached: cpp.jpg (1750x463, 192K)

m8

Attached: 3523523523.jpg (1048x493, 40K)

>but that's the price to pay to have a high-performance language like C++.
Ironic when RUST is almost as fast and its not a clusterfuck

Also

>Go

The language without a fucking point to its existance

>The language without a fucking point to its existance
It's the other way around: Go is very popular because it has a point. It's much faster than Python, while removing most of the bad stuff from C (preprocessor, manual memory management, etc.) It's ideal to write simple to medium-complexity apps running on Linux: command-line tools, daemons, etc. You could write the entire Unix userland in Go with no problem. There's a reason why Go is popular (I'm not a Go fanboy, in fact I've never used it, I'm a C++ developer, but I'd use Go if I had to write something more casual).

Rust brings nothing to the table to a C++ developer. It has better support in the compiler for memory safety, whereas in C++ you have to use sanitizers, Valgrind, etc. and more generally be careful. That's good, but that's not enough to switch language and give up: standardization, multiple mature implementations, tons of great libraries, excellent IDEs, etc. It's just not a good trade. Which is why virtually no C++ developer has moved to Rust. I bet more people migrated from Ruby than from C or C++.

Literally nobody uses GO what the fuck are you talking about

>it's just a for and it's slower
Can't wait to see a real program with it

I mean, really, what's the selling point for Rust?
It's not safety, because safety has to do with testing, not with the language.
It can be security, because undefined behavior can be exploited indeed, although nowadays you solve the problem in a different way: containment, privilege separation, etc. Rust does not really bring anything of much value there. And because it still requires unsafe blocks, it's not even that safe; their fucking standard library had buffer overfloews, integer overflows, etc.
cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2018-1000810/
cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2018-1000657/

I'm not even a Go developer or fanboy and I use two go projects: Gitea and Hugo (I also use Docker at work, but I hate that Linux crap).

Modern c++ is mess with a lot of small allocations, 100% cache miss and always lead to spaghetti code. Bonus point for horrible compile time and bad errors messages

Learn Rust first, just to get a sense for ownership discipline, even if you switch to C, or C++ later. It's just as low-level, even if it sometimes doesn't feel that way due to type inference.

It's mostly a nicer C++ anyway, so the friction is pretty low. Except that C++ is a horrible language. C is less horrible, but still barely 70's tech.

The canonical example is people trying to implement linked lists as an instructional exercise, because they're "easy". But in fact they are hard to get right in C, too, Rust just makes it not compile instead of crashing at random points during run-time.

If you have to resort to unsafe it's not any less safe than C AND it's easy to see where it might blow up, instead of everywhere. But if you try to implement anything like this as anything but an exercise instead of using a ready-made, already debugged library you're retarded anyway.

White, straight, male here, btw. No socks.

>linked lists are hard

>in fact they are hard to get right in C
how?

No, they struggle to port basic data structures. Specifically, data structures where objects don't have a single unambiguous owner. Shouldn't be surprising, for a language that's all about ownership.

Common Lisp can be almost as fast as C with the added benefit of having an expressive power that is two orders of magnitude larger, and arguably simpler to both write and read than C++.
C++ has gotten better in the recent standards, but it's still way more complicated than it needs to be.
It should really start ditching muh backwards compatibility and deprecate or outright remove outdated, inferior features: most of its problems actually stem from C and the goal of backwards compatibility, that's why seeing people shit on C++ and then say C is better is outright laughable.

>safety has to do with testing, not with the language.
I just hope you believe static typing adds nothing to safety, for coherence's sake.

You remove old features and everything goes to shit cause 90% of c++ code is from the ancient times

>(((Common Lisp))) is simpler to both write and read
I wonder who is behind this post.

Attached: 4EAA7DE9-DE69-4543-A5D9-22AF2AAFA93E.gif (679x693, 79K)

>promoting a standardized, mature language with real features and 100% free and open source implementations is communism/judaism
Ok lad.

thenewstack.io/which-programming-languages-use-the-least-electricity/

I won't suggest Rust
BUT NEVER , NEVER USE C++

go is a gimped retarded language designed for google pajeets that can't read good code.

github.com/ksimka/go-is-not-good

Attached: rmm19vt8vp911.png (2512x1018, 421K)

Only trannies ie the mentally defective use rust lmao

from where this tranny rust meme came from ?

rust devs are mostly autist elitists like the haskell community.

they look down on all other languages.

>Syntax highlighting is juvenile. When I was a child, I was taught arithmetic using colored rods (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuisenaire_rods). I grew up and today I use monochromatic numerals.

Attached: wheeze.jpg (436x329, 28K)

>I just hope you believe static typing adds nothing to safety, for coherence's sake.
Correct. C has very little typing and yet it's one of the most used language for safety critical systems.

Because testing is what matters.

Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say C has "little typing"?

Then you're just wrong, because a strong, static type system (which is an intrinsic property of a language) does, in fact, avoid a large class of errors, making testing for those unnecessary.
Besides, most safety critical systems, particularly those in military settings, are still in assembly. C is a lot less used there than most people believe.

Maybe "little typing" is not the right way of saying it. But basically it allows some implicit casts, etc.

And how does that relate to static typing, in your mind?

C

Programming in Rust is like wearing a seat belt and believing that you would survive if the car explodes.

Better to drive a ferrari with a seatbelt than without one

>Rust is cleaner. If you are not introduced to think about memory, referencing, scopes, lifetimes, dynamic allocation vs stack allocation vs static allocation
Then you're not a real programmer
>Arguments that C++ is more popular is quite irrelevant
For a postmodernist, reality is merely an inconvenience yes.
> If you have uni studies in front of you then that's plethora of weeks to migrate your knowledge to C++.
WORST advice ever.

Attached: 20190106_234825.jpg (716x894, 107K)

>It should really start ditching muh backwards compatibility and deprecate or outright remove outdated
Like what? You Rust faggots read off a script but what exactly do you want broken?

Rust.

C++ is an extremely confusing language that only gets worse with each new standard. Only reason to learn C++ is so you can contribute to existing C++ projects.

Rust on the other hand is entirely green field and being designed by people who have spent their doctorate trying to understand what makes a good language and has all the latest trendy plt features people want. Rust doesn't require you to stumble into shit like static init ordering, or worry about value categories and why things like std::max(x, x+1) don't work the way you expect. the compile knows all these fucky things and lets you know. it lets you know with the added advantage that you can even start parallelizing your code safely because rust knows these common C++ woes.

another real boon of rust is it actually has a module system baked in. you don't need to learn autotools, cmake or whatever autismal make-based garbage build system for C++. cargo just fucking works and even the rust compiler directly just fucking works. you can take comfort in cargo being able to pull dependent code without you having to do some "concat to header only super lib" shit that C and C++ fags resort to.

By the time Rust is feature equivalent of C++ the social justice fad will be long over and anything associated with it forever tainted. Ultimately what Rust will become is a fringe language that ends up influencing features in other less political languages.

Attached: STEAMTeam5_Share.png (1200x630, 385K)

>designed by people who have spent their doctorate trying to understand what makes a good language and has all the latest trendy plt features people want
they failed miserably

Where my dependent types at lol

>not learning both as well as go
I think all programmers should know some c and c++ though. Even if you don't use them the idea of not being familiar with them is weird to me

Attached: 1523740856207.jpg (260x273, 61K)

C++ if you want a job.
Rust before C++ if you're just trying to learn for the long term and won't be looking for an embedded job in a few years.

Rust teaches ownership, lifetimes, pointer aliasing etc much better than C++. And it has decent tutorials, an excellent package manager and excellent compiler error messages, so you will be spending time learning by programming instead of trying to solve linker errors with dependencies.

Just use C, the Rust community is toxic

NULL pointers, dangling pointers, double free, etc.

Not terribly difficult, but not trivial either.

Anyway, Rust doesn't make it any harder than it is in C, unless you're retarded and don't realize unsafe is there for a reason.

You know C++ then you know C

>C++ if you're a zoomer
how the fuck does C++ correlate with zoomers you fuckin retarded

Truth be told ctards if both C++ and RUST were released at the same time nobody would choose C++ from the two and you know it

Attached: 1547834083396.gif (200x200, 1.16M)

C developers hate C++ more than anyone else, so they would likely agree.

Problem is how else do you call C++ tards to make it sound obnoxious as Ctards for C people.

But brainlets claim writing correct C++ is easy "if you're careful" and at the same time they cry at the borrow checker/type system which prevents their buggy code from compiling.

Why do you assume every single small criticism of C++ comes from people who use Rust?
I've never used Rust in my life, I can't even write hello world. Are you THIS invested in a fucking programming language?
Grow up.

you didn't answer rustfag

go back to Jow Forums uneducated retard

The way Rust and Go implements polymorphism and interfaces makes so much more sense than C++'s multiple inheritance implementation. Packing vtables with instances is a weird idea.

He’s not a rustfag, he’s a smug LISP-weenie.

It's just a great filter against normies.
The greatest pleasure about some technology is how it's able to exclude.

C++ because modern C++11 and up is decent even though C++03 and older is shit. It's better than Rust, and you can use C libraries and headers out of the box. It's also more portable, much more mature, and you can even be like me and mostly just use it as C with classes/namespaces/occasionally templates.

If you can't write memory-safe code in C, you're an idiot. If you can't do it in C++ with classes and destructors, you're retarded.

Dangling pointers are your own fault. Set pointers to NULL after free()ing them.

>Dangling pointers are your own fault.
So is dereferencing a NULL pointer, or a double free, but people still do it. It has nothing to do with being careful, either. You can't be careful 100% of the time. A compiler can, at least in theory, for things that can be expressed algorithmically.

>If you can't write memory-safe code in C, you're an idiot.
yodaiken.com/2018/06/07/torvalds-on-aliasing/
Daily reminder it's impossible to use C correctly, even Linus doesn't understand the standard and advocates for ignoring it, basically inviting UBs and subtle bugs:
> Don't tell me "the C standard is unclear". The C standard is _clearly_ bogus shit (see above on strict aliasing rules), and when it is bogus garbage, it needs to be explicitly ignored
> The standard simply is not *important*, when it is in direct conflict with reality and reliable code generation.
> I've said this before, and I'll say it again: a standards paper is just so much toilet paper when it conflicts with reality. It has absolutely _zero_ relevance. In fact, I'll take real toilet paper over standards any day, because at least that way I won't have splinters and ink up my arse.
No, you can either support him, basically turning gcc with a set of the compiler options into the de-facto C standard, but then it's no better than other languages without a standard and you're a hostage of the horribly maintained project gcc is. Or you can argue against him, but then you have to somehow show that competent C programmers even exist, because the most famous C programmer in the world is clearly incompetent.

I honestly believe the only people who hate C are people who don't understand basic low level computer concepts, prove me wrong

>C++11 and up is decent even though C++03 and older is shit.
My thoughts exactly. The main problem with C++ now is that, with the introduction of C++11, it has pretty much become two distinct languages, often incompatible in principles: the older, garbage and truly unnecessarily complex =C++11. Additional features such as auto variables, smart pointers that actually work, template deduction, move semantics and lambdas are actually helpful, and it does feel like a different, more modern language, finally departing from C.
C++03 was really just C with an additional layer of complexity on top, and that's what made it really shit.
That's why I have mostly mixed feelings about C++. The latest standards do have some attractive features, but it's all built on a fragile foundation, which unfortunately, for compatibility reasons, can't be fully eliminated.

You are wrong, because there is nothing "low level" about C: queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3212479

It's still perfectly suited for low level tasks.

C/C++, asm and python (if you consider c++ a "new language" from C) is the holy trinity
Maybe even haskell for autism purposes but atm it's not that popular to have relevant use cases

I wouldn't be surprised to see it lose its spot to whatever the new trendy language is 6 months from now. That seems to be how that part of the industry works.
On the other hand, if Rust can make inroads in finance, scientific/research computing, or embedded, it might stick around for a while.

You are retarded. That's a documented and supported feature of gcc, so there is no danger of "inviting UBs and subtle bugs".

AFAIK there is no way to write a kernel in pure C anyway (you need asm at least), so yeah.

>C/C++,
Retard.
>not that popular to have relevant use cases
How the fuck is popularity related to use cases?