@principo@Shreyassanthu77@yutongwu111140 Fair enough, I apologize for my comment earlier, I tend to get a bit dramatic at times. Also I actually appreciate your curiosity.
As for the binary size again it is a debug build.. its possible to trim of most of this just by asking the compiler to generate a release build..
@Thunder_Chicken@JesseStojan@abdimoalim_ I suppose it is not measurable “better” at anything than C. It provides many safety language features, while enforcing patterns that do not take away from any of C’s flexibility but offers better debug-ability and readability.
Makes doing the same tasks more conveniently.
@JesseStojan@abdimoalim_ Doesn’t have to replace C but it is objectively better, there is no arguing this. It is far superior to C and if you disagree then you’re either already pretty comfortable with C, which I respect or you’re staggeringly ignorant. Also I can understand if you just dont like syntax
@jhestolano@abdimoalim_ No but too often people learn how to “use” something without learning what it’s actually doing.
It’s important to peak inside the black box now and again.
@sheddythedev@YIvanovskyi@yutongwu111140 Memory safety patterns in rust follow RAII similar to C++, which are oop based.
Difference is C++ makes RAII optional, it is only a conventional not a language rule.
But rust bounds you to a very specific paradigm to managing memory and subsequently bounds you to oop.