It is absolutely unique to C++ in the sense that no other language contains its own predecessor as a subset (at least none that i know of?). I did not say everyone who writes C code and passes it off as C++ does so for the sole reason that C is available now did i? You're putting words in my mouth. Whatever their motivations are for doing so is completely irrelevant, what is relevant is that C++ _enables_ them to do it. No other language does this. Java might be based on C++ to some extent, and people coming to Java from C++ might at first not succeed in writing idiomatic Java due to their previous habits, but they will have a very hard time indeed of writing actual C++ code and passing it off as Java to anyone but a blind person. So yes, this property is absolutely unique to C++!Originally Posted by phantomotap
By virtue of the fact that previous languages which have been said to have potential to replace C were not Rust means that the claim that Rust might do so is a different claim entirely, and cannot be dismissed simply by referring to previous cases. This is a fallacy.Your problem is that your "lure" is so easily dismissed that few people will give such nonsense any sort of credibility. I have, yes literally, seen dozens of languages that were going to replace C and C++ and Javascript and PHP. The very idea of a new language having such a different feature set replacing any other language is laughably foolish. No experienced programmer is going to take "$(Language1) is going to replace $(Language2)." seriously because we've all seen that claim prove false many times.
I get that completely, none of the previous languages which have been proposed as a replacement for C has prompted the community around C to migrate. You even say yourself that this could be for 'whatever reason', yet when a new language comes along that might or might not possess the values that could prompt a migration, it is shrugged off as irrelevant or unjustified since we already have C.How do you not get that very simply thing? C already has several viable alternatives. Rust is in no way unique. Rust is just a different flavor in a box already saturated with different flavor. The people using C are still using C because they have chosen, for whatever reasons, to use C. My opinions do not matter. Your opinions do not matter. No language will ever be replaced while the community around the language sees no value in switching.
I do not 'claim' that Rust will replace C or C++, i hope it will. I've stated that Rust is superior to C / C++ in a number of different ways and have provided arguments to back this up. What are these claims that i have yet to back up? Less than a page ago you told me there is no argument i could offer to someone who sees what i claim to be a solution to a problem as a problem in and of itself, so really there is no winning with you is there?I have given you multiple chances, and I even asked then told you to support your claims with something substantial.
I have done no such thing whatsoever!You mocked the very notion that you should have to defend your opinions.
Yes because it has nothing to do with the subject at hand? Also i know your views on the matter and it leads nowhere.You even specifically refused to enter a debate about the merits of "OOP"
What on earth are you talking about? The gist of my argument in fact had nothing to do with OOP, my point was that the presence of C within the language of C++ can facilitate newcomers to create non-idiomatic C++ code, as we see countless examples of on this board on a daily basis.which you implicitly claimed as superior
¨Your comments still reek of "preconceptions, narrow views, and limited understanding of the preceding language".
And your comments reek of the cynicism that many years of experience can foster. Take a vacation or something.
