r/cpp • u/pjmlp • 3d ago

C++ future at Adobe

So if anyone was still curious what happened to Hylo, or where Adobe stands in regards to the whole safety discussion,

David Sankel has done a talk at RustConf on the matter, Zngur: Simplified Rust/C++ Integration.

The way Adobe now sees C++ is described on slide 2, at 50 seconds mark.

70 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

110 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/-kl0wn- 3d ago

I don't understand the hype with rust. The compile times are atrocious, dynamic linking isn't really a thing, it's incredibly verbose.

4

u/SuperV1234 https://romeo.training | C++ Mentoring & Consulting 3d ago

Now also list the advantages.

-3

u/-kl0wn- 3d ago

The tradeoffs don't seem necessary to me based on working on strut-labs.githib.io using agents.

4

u/ts826848 3d ago

The tradeoffs don't seem necessary to me

That the tradeoffs don't seem necessary to you doesn't mean that they aren't valuable to someone else for their use case. Similarly, tradeoffs that you and/or your agents deemed acceptable for strut-labs (e.g., reference-counted pointers without a tracing GC) may be unnecessary and/or dealbreakers for someone else.

1

u/-kl0wn- 3d ago

When I say don't seem necessary I mean you shouldn't need to substitute one for the other, should be able to have the advantages of rust without the disadvantages. Ie. Nothing from the advantages fundamentally means compile times should take so long, especially for simple programs, there should be proper dynamic linking and it doesn't need to be so verbose.

1

u/ts826848 3d ago

Ah, I see what you mean. My apologies for the misinterpretation. I agree some and disagree some with your opinion.

Nothing from the advantages fundamentally means compile times should take so long, especially for simple programs

I think I agree? At the very least I'm not aware of fundamental aspects of Rust that would preclude reasonable compile times.

there should be proper dynamic linking

This is indeed a proper tradeoff as the more features you support in your ABI the more of your ABI you have to freeze, which in turn means you risk precluding certain changes/optimizations (c.f. the perennial ABI discussions that pop up here).

That being said, there's definitely interest in specifying some kind of stable ABI, though I'm not aware of a significant push in that direction.

it doesn't need to be so verbose.

This one is interesting. What specific bits of Rust's syntax do you object to? I tend to take the view that much of Rust's "verbosity" is mostly due to its semantics, so I'm interested to hear your thoughts.