Comment by lionkor
1 month ago
Thats a lot of red flags to put on your landing page.
Modern C++ standards are the bare minimum you should enforce in terms of software safety and correctness.
1 month ago
Thats a lot of red flags to put on your landing page.
Modern C++ standards are the bare minimum you should enforce in terms of software safety and correctness.
I would have expected to see some examples of how the GUIs look. Clicked around for a bit and didn't see one single example. This doesn't look serious at all.
It's mainly a Qt preservation project (The fully open-source parts of Qt, but without the MOC compiler / QML / Qt Declarative) - so not that much different from it.
So, just like Copperspice?
"Modern C++" is the same rewrite costs as if you Rewrote It In Rust, except that at the end you still have C++ and are still on the same treadmill and will be doing this again next time. It makes sense for C++ trainers to promote this, it's repeat business.
Every three years there will be another iteration of "Modern C++" (it seems like some want to now call C++ 20 and C++ 23 "Contemporary C++" instead of "Modern C++" but it's the same again) and you're back to do more rewrites.
This couldn't be farther from the truth.
Not only will a Rust rewrite take 5-20x longer, you'll also be supporting 2 versions (C++ and Rust) for a long time, while doing the rewrite and migration, and that will eat up a lot of dev hours.
I've done incremental C++ migrations and they are not nearly as complex or stressful, especially when you leverage libtooling or Python bindings to write AST-rewriting scripts for those large refactorings.
> Not only will a Rust rewrite take 5-20x longer
If "Modern C++" really was a static target you could imagine performing the transition to "Modern C++" and you're done. If that existed it would compare to the Rust rewrite, maybe it would be 5-20x faster. But "Modern C++" isn't a static target, if we understand "Modern C++" this way (say, as C++ 17) obviously it's unsuitable for such safety of life software.
Instead the "Modern C++" transition is like a worse version of one of Zero's paradoxes. We never arrive at our intended destination and are always instead asked to perform another transition, the work never ends.
> Modern C++" is the same rewrite costs as if you Rewrote It In Rust
Certainly not! The update can be done incrementally as pre-modern C++ is (almost) fully compatible with modern C++.
That’s a weird take. I would expect it not being the same cost to do a rewrite in Rust, like, not at all.
You can do it incrementally with C++, not to mention not needing to hire a team of rust developers. I don’t think you want to let a team of C++ devs that are just learning Rust do a full rewrite as their first big project experience.
Also, when switching from, say, C++20 to C++23, thinking it’s the same amount of work as a full rewrite in Rust is laughable.
And in some year there will be "Modern Rust"
[flagged]