The article is clear that this is about C# not C++. Is the romance for managed languages wearing off - I wonder what issues they are seeing.
Microsoft is big in C++, but they are also pushing C++ to be a lot safer. Modern C++ isn’t as safe as rust, but it is still much safer than C or C++98.
As a C++ developer memory safety catches my attention. I keep rejecting code reviews - in 2024! - because of naked new. Since experience proves I can’t get people to use the memory safety modern C++ offers I need to force the issue.
unfortunaty rust has other choices that don’t play well with our existing C++ so it will be a long road.
Seems interesting. Wonder whether this is going to further spark Rust adoption in the enterprise.
It’s more likely that they see rust as a good successor to their legacy c++ code. Microsoft has always been heavily invested in C++ after all.
They don’t want to sell rust. It’s not a money maker for them.
The article is clear that this is about C# not C++. Is the romance for managed languages wearing off - I wonder what issues they are seeing.
Microsoft is big in C++, but they are also pushing C++ to be a lot safer. Modern C++ isn’t as safe as rust, but it is still much safer than C or C++98.
Tail latency and memory usage?
It’s hard for me to come up with any other big advantages that Rust has and C# couldn’t easily lift.
Hopefully they won’t come up with some kind of a Rust/CLI, a version of Rust with GC support.
I think enterprises are the early adopters and proponents of Rust. They seem so stoked about the memory safety aspect.
As a C++ developer memory safety catches my attention. I keep rejecting code reviews - in 2024! - because of naked new. Since experience proves I can’t get people to use the memory safety modern C++ offers I need to force the issue.
unfortunaty rust has other choices that don’t play well with our existing C++ so it will be a long road.