Thread

1. dekdrop · 1791046077 · focus · HN ↗

   written in rust, doesn't say written in rust on the site - i guess that phase is over

   1. habitue · 1791046883 · focus · HN ↗

      Now people just wonder why you didn't write it in rust

      1. boredatoms · 1791049273 · focus · HN ↗

         I mean starting a new project in C or C++ does kinda need a defensible reason at this point, at least in any corporate environment

         1. rfgplk · 1791050883 · focus · HN ↗

            The real defensible reason is that with current tools available you can write perfectly safe (safer than Rust even) C++ code, while avoiding the horrid Rust compile times and without needing to pepper your code with unsafe all over the place. LLM's can help you formally verify your code and extensively fuzz/test it to the point where you can actually be sure (ie prove) that the code is safe, without really relying on Rusts compiler. Lastly, C++ lends itself more naturally to hardcore optimizations than Rust. But ultimately it really, _really_ comes down to a) Rust's horrid compile times and b) Rust's horrid metaprogramming support (this even kills it for LLM generated output because it wastes tokens).
         2. tkz1312 · 1791051272 · focus · HN ↗

            I fully expect formally verified C to become the standard for any reasonably critical software. It's astonishing how easy it is to crank out program equivalence proofs these days...

            1. LoganDark · 1791071587 · focus · HN ↗

               Is there a benefit to formally verified C over formally verified Rust? Maybe platform support?
         3. pjmlp · 1791116205 · focus · HN ↗

            Corporate environment over here, the reason is easy, that is what many SDKs support out of the box without extra tooling, added complexity building the missing pieces ourselves or relying in whatever community project, and finally the human part of actually wanting to use something else.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.