Rust is much less complex than c++. Again, I’m not sure why you’re so focused on syntax. That’s the easiest part of a programming language to learn. The semantics, abstractions, etc. are what take the most effort to learn and MUCH simpler in Rust than in C++.
I was told, simpler than C, syntax wise and coding a _real life_ rust compiler implementation being _SIGNIFICANTLY EASIER_ than a C compiler.
That was a lie, period.
rust is just another toxic computer language, but this one seems to be financed and pushed like any other by powerful organized groups of people. As I said, there is a smell of Big Tech.
And I don't forget the "ofc, the canonical rust compiler is written in rust"... (but the real hard work is actually done by llvm which require a c++14 compiler). What a f** joke.
I wanted to update my judgment on rust, well, I did.
> I was told, simpler than C, syntax wise and coding a _real life_ rust compiler implementation being _SIGNIFICANTLY EASIER_ than a C compiler.
Who told you this? Ignoring Rust, most languages are more complicated to implement than C. Only the original Pascal seems simpler, since it has no preprocessor, its syntax is less complicated, and there are fewer implicit type conversions.
It seems unreasonable to me to hate Rust because its compiler is more complex to implement than a C compiler, and because its syntax is more complex. This is just a consequence of it having more concepts built-in to the language, like ownership, lifetimes, crates (i.e. modules), polymorphism, generic functions, etc. Most programming languages are not as stripped-down as C or Pascal.
> And I don't forget the "ofc, the canonical rust compiler is written in rust"... (but the real hard work is actually done by llvm which require a c++14 compiler). What a f* joke.
The only C compilers that are freely available and produce good code are written in C++. C isn't special either.
