C++ to Rust Phrasebook

As someone that has been around C and C++ communities since 1990's, I also expect that in the long term Rust won't be able to escape this phenomenon, even with editions.

Like any other programming language that has made it into the top 10 over several decades of production code.

The happy path will get fuzzier, as more humans have their own opinion on what means to write code on the ecosystem, with various kinds of backgrounds and their own agendas, companies whose IT refuses to upgrade, the amount of implementations in the industry increases, teachers not bothering to keep up to date,...

Are C++ modules actually production ready now? Last I checked, they still weren't properly supported accross all major compilers.

> There are easy ways to implement stuff like enums with members in C++, just put an anonymous enum inside a class/struct, its possible but marked as not possible.

This guide does exactly that in C++ for methods on enums.

For members, won't this result in all instances of an "enum" having all fields? That's not really comparable to Rust enums, if that's what you mean.

C++ modules still not supported on VSCode, always pissed when I get notifications from this 5 y.o. thread [0].

0: https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-cpptools/issues/6302

To be fair, there's a reason for the pattern with init methods you're describing.

C++ constructors can't return values. If construction is fallible, the only way to communicate the error is via C++ exceptions. If you're in a code base that embraces exceptions, that's fine. But (C++) exceptions kind of suck, so many code bases don't, and then you have to find some alternatives.

Over the years, I've increasingly adopted a pattern where the constructor is private in this case and the object construction can be done with static methods - which is a bit more like Rust, actually.

The rationale is probably that it’s better for C++ devs to write non idiomatic Rust than to keep writing unsafe C++. Like unless they use unsafe and completely circumvent the borrow checker, it’s still gonna be safer. Not letting perfect be the enemy of good and all.

Plus idiomatic rust isn’t that strict a definition. Clippy will guide you for most of the simple stuff and the rest isn’t always worth following. Like people who try to do stuff “correctly” with traits often end up with way more complexity than it’s worth.

I hate with passion two phase initialisation, C++ libraries that are bare bones C libraries wrapped in an extern "C" { }, malloc()/free(), C style coding and such.

The worst pitfall is Rust references == pointers.

They are implemented as pointers, but their role is to give temporary (often exclusive) access that is restricted to a statically know scope, which is pretty specific and fits only some uses of some pointers/C++ references. In C++ pointers typically mean avoiding copying, but Rust references avoid storing/keeping the data. When these goals don't overlap, people get stuck with a dreadful "does not live long enough" whack-a-mole.

A resource like this is a good place to discuss where the two languages are near and far. Of course there are going to be styles within each language that differ as much as the languages themselves.

C++ syntax and semantics are optimized for C++ idioms, and Rust's aren't.

Rust is more related to ML-family languages than C-family and OOP, so it needs to "emulate" some C++ idioms.

This goes both ways, e.g. equivalent of Rust's pattern matching on enums with data translates to verbose and clunky C++.

And they even made the C++ version more verbose than it should have been. Most people would write:

class Person { int age = 0; };

I wish rust would make default struct field values this easy to write.

Plenty of C++ practitioners who still intend to mostly write C++ after learning some Rust said it actually gave them useful insights they'll be applying in future C++

We can also see in the committee proposal papers "Rust does X" has for years now been a good comeback when you need to show that X is a realistic choice not just for languages like Python which may be less concerned about performance and incur a heavy runtime, a garbage collector, etc., but also a "real" language like C++. The paper which landed code.contains("FOO") in the C++ string handling code is an example, there's a long list of languages which do this but they made sure to mention Rust.

This isn't much of a tutorial or learning guide, it's a lookup table that roughly pattern matches C++ to Rust.

Probably not the best place to start learning.

I've taken a look, and it's definitely expecting you to know some C++. Or at least, it spends equal time on both, which means it can't warn you about the foot guns in c++.