Learn enough C to encounter the pain points C++ & Rust are trying to solve. C is simple, but not easy.
Then learn enough Rust to be productive.
Then learn enough C++ to interact with the enormous amounts of existing C++ code.
Once you know a bit of all 3, decide where to focus based on the work you're trying to do. Rust is the easiest, but least widely supported. C is necessary either way, unless you're working for Microsoft where C++ fills that role.
I think I know what you're trying to say, but unfortunately C is anything but simple. The semantics are riddled with surprises of all kinds. It's unlikely the average C programmer has never written a program with undefined behavior, for example.
As a newcomer to systems programming, I hopped on the Rust hype train and enjoyed the ride for quite a while.
But in recent months, I've been more drawn to Zig. Simplicity, vision and governance of the language (among many other things) are very much to my liking.
As a bonus, I can use Zig to interact with C (even compile C, Zig is also a toolchain), so I feel I'm bound to learn more about C on this journey, too.
In your position, I'd also check out Zig, just to see if it's more your cup of tea or not. Here's a good intro talk: https://youtu.be/YXrb-DqsBNU
C is the best choice to learn systems programming.
C is the simplest of C, C++, or Rust and most other languages have C interop or foreign function interface.
First learn C and then you can learn Rust or C++ if needed. The concepts you learn in C programming will help you to better understand the more advanced concepts used in Rust or C++.
Agree that C is easier to explore the concepts in, but knowing enough C to know why e.g. [0] gets the behavior it does is IMO not useful if the goal is to learn the _concepts_ before switching to a language that doesn't do this kind of thing.
So, IMO worth jumping to Rust as soon as you feel confident with the stack vs the heap, use-after-frees, etc.
The rust programmers that learned C first always have very elegant solutions and have the least issues in their unsafe blocks.
C to learn how memory works and how to manage resources, then Rust to understand how to use a higher level systems language for more productivity in places where it helps.
I work as a C++ dev and there are jobs in it, but unless you are trying to work a C++ job, the other two are wayyy better.
C is a good learning language for systems programming, no doubt about it. All of the elementary concepts are exposed in a simple way that will server you well in any systems programming language. It was also a language design that informed many of the systems language designs that came later, so the history is educational.
However, it is not a productive systems programming language these days compared to C++, Rust, or Zig.
I would choose Rust because it has much better developer ergonomics than C. Even the little things like having a standard linter and package manager (Cargo) go a long way in writing idiomatic code. You can't go wrong with either choice, so choose the one that makes you most productive.
This is an underrated advantage of Rust. And, I can expect code to compile (or compile + flash for embedded) by running `cargo run` on Linux or Windows, vice expecting a dependency mess with the C toolchains I've encountered.
The key to any of embedded, system, or low-level programming is as much about learning how the computer actually works to a reasonable degree. You are not programming to an abstract computation model. You are moving bits and bytes around and generating assembly code and talking to the machine at quite a low-level.
So while Rust and C++ are higher-level languages with all kinds of nice features to be safer, concise, structured, etc. they are not good at all for learning how to work at this low-level. Wielding either of them well for systems code is quite advanced.
C and assembly are where you really need to start.
C is an abstract computer as much as any virtual machine. Now this computer is quite simple compared to the abstract machines of Rust and C++ but is doesn’t have much to do with how a computer actually works.
Disagree, C is not at all lower level than Rust or C++. It is much less expressive, but there is nothing that would be possible in C that can’t be done in C++/Rust. Hell, these latter two are even closer to the hardware due to having proper SIMD primitives.
C++ is the de facto “most performant” language for a reason.
This question is bad. Learn all three. You’re not taking a class at school. There is no penalty for dropping out. Just start learning and if it’s boring, stop.
C is forever. It’s the only language where the community aspires to target as early a specification as they can. This keeps C in the hands of the programmers and not the compiler creators.
I assume this question is about which language to learn, rather than which language to use for a particular project assuming you're at least somewhat familiar with all three.
C++ is not a bad place to start, as any decent course in it will, after the basic concepts of variables, loops, arrays, functions, pointers and memory, algorithms & data structures, introduce you to both classes and inheritance and encapsulation (the typical object-oriented paradigm) as well as how to write functions with nested lambdas (the basic functional paradigm). From there you can pick up almost any 'higher-level' language like Java, Python, etc. that utilizes some kind of virtual machine/interpreter to run the code, the various pure functional languages and so on.
Learning C and/or Rust is then a lot more accessible I think. You'll have some grasp of why 'memory-safe' Rust became fairly popular, and of why C's more low-level and simpler approach (no classes, inheritance, etc.) relying on structs, function pointers, etc. instead is still attractive, flaws and all.
The underlying theme though is that these languages all compile directly without any Python-like 'bytecode' intermediate, so probably at some point diving into the assembly output for specific platforms (x86-64, ARM, RISC-V) will be worthwhile, for which godbolt.org is the place to go.
It really depends on the kind of systems programming you are doing. As a rough heuristic, C for embedded because portability across odd silicon; C++ for complex software close to the metal, like database kernels; Rust for somewhat higher level software — not so close to the metal — where performance matters. Right tool for the job, and all that.
All are good choices in the right context. None is unambiguously superior for all systems programming use cases.
I'd be interested to hear if anyone has learned Rust without first understanding memory addressing and pointers.
Although I think Rust is a better way to write safe code and the industry is right to adopt it, it seems like a heavy lift to learn about heaps, stacks and pointers whilst also learning about ownership and lifetimes.
I don't really think that C++ is worth learning unless you have to work on an existing C++ codebase.
I think learning for the sake of learning is highly overrated in programming. Would a woodworker advice anyone to learn wood working from a book?
Find a project that you think is important and work on it. Doesn’t matter which language. You can always switch. Knowing C++ will make you a better Rust programmer and vice versa.
rust, c++ and (to a certain extent) c are all quite high level languages. if you want to learn low-level programming, learn it for the assembly language for the processor you are interested in. this will make learing languages like c, and the others easier - i know it did it for me.
SAI_Peregrinus|2 years ago
Then learn enough Rust to be productive.
Then learn enough C++ to interact with the enormous amounts of existing C++ code.
Once you know a bit of all 3, decide where to focus based on the work you're trying to do. Rust is the easiest, but least widely supported. C is necessary either way, unless you're working for Microsoft where C++ fills that role.
DonaldPShimoda|2 years ago
I think I know what you're trying to say, but unfortunately C is anything but simple. The semantics are riddled with surprises of all kinds. It's unlikely the average C programmer has never written a program with undefined behavior, for example.
727564797069706|2 years ago
But in recent months, I've been more drawn to Zig. Simplicity, vision and governance of the language (among many other things) are very much to my liking.
As a bonus, I can use Zig to interact with C (even compile C, Zig is also a toolchain), so I feel I'm bound to learn more about C on this journey, too.
In your position, I'd also check out Zig, just to see if it's more your cup of tea or not. Here's a good intro talk: https://youtu.be/YXrb-DqsBNU
thesuperbigfrog|2 years ago
C is the simplest of C, C++, or Rust and most other languages have C interop or foreign function interface.
First learn C and then you can learn Rust or C++ if needed. The concepts you learn in C programming will help you to better understand the more advanced concepts used in Rust or C++.
Recommended first book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_C_Programming_Language
remexre|2 years ago
So, IMO worth jumping to Rust as soon as you feel confident with the stack vs the heap, use-after-frees, etc.
[0]: https://godbolt.org/z/x7bf4edo9
joseph8th|2 years ago
C forces you to think like a programmer. Once you grasp that, you can learn most other languages with relative ease.
Maybe not counting Lisps.
mr_00ff00|2 years ago
The rust programmers that learned C first always have very elegant solutions and have the least issues in their unsafe blocks.
C to learn how memory works and how to manage resources, then Rust to understand how to use a higher level systems language for more productivity in places where it helps.
I work as a C++ dev and there are jobs in it, but unless you are trying to work a C++ job, the other two are wayyy better.
jandrewrogers|2 years ago
However, it is not a productive systems programming language these days compared to C++, Rust, or Zig.
shicholas|2 years ago
the__alchemist|2 years ago
fargle|2 years ago
So while Rust and C++ are higher-level languages with all kinds of nice features to be safer, concise, structured, etc. they are not good at all for learning how to work at this low-level. Wielding either of them well for systems code is quite advanced.
C and assembly are where you really need to start.
user8501|2 years ago
kaba0|2 years ago
C++ is the de facto “most performant” language for a reason.
nathants|2 years ago
passing structs to functions is probably the way, but a struct with functions works too.
earthboundkid|2 years ago
abnercoimbre|2 years ago
- The Race to Replace C & C++ (2020) [0]
- The Race to Replace C & C++, Episode 2 (2021) [1]
- Memory Strategies: The Merits of (Un)safe (2022) [2]
They feature prominent guests including the creators of Zig and Odin, as well as people making a living using Rust. Hope this helps!
[0] https://handmade.network/podcast/ep/fe1a2a6a-3ac6-4ce5-b8fb-...
[1] https://handmade.network/podcast/ep/57103cab-ff39-42b4-b59b-...
[2] https://handmade.network/podcast/ep/afc72ed0-f05f-4bee-a658-...
itsmefaz|2 years ago
debatem1|2 years ago
Maybe someday it'll be rust, but if so that day isn't this year or next. Plenty of time to pick it up for your next job.
user8501|2 years ago
photochemsyn|2 years ago
C++ is not a bad place to start, as any decent course in it will, after the basic concepts of variables, loops, arrays, functions, pointers and memory, algorithms & data structures, introduce you to both classes and inheritance and encapsulation (the typical object-oriented paradigm) as well as how to write functions with nested lambdas (the basic functional paradigm). From there you can pick up almost any 'higher-level' language like Java, Python, etc. that utilizes some kind of virtual machine/interpreter to run the code, the various pure functional languages and so on.
Learning C and/or Rust is then a lot more accessible I think. You'll have some grasp of why 'memory-safe' Rust became fairly popular, and of why C's more low-level and simpler approach (no classes, inheritance, etc.) relying on structs, function pointers, etc. instead is still attractive, flaws and all.
The underlying theme though is that these languages all compile directly without any Python-like 'bytecode' intermediate, so probably at some point diving into the assembly output for specific platforms (x86-64, ARM, RISC-V) will be worthwhile, for which godbolt.org is the place to go.
hgs3|2 years ago
andyferris|2 years ago
It offers the same system programming capabilities as C but makes it much easier to write correct programs.
(If Rust is the “better C++”, then Zig is the “better C”).
jandrewrogers|2 years ago
All are good choices in the right context. None is unambiguously superior for all systems programming use cases.
ritchiey|2 years ago
Although I think Rust is a better way to write safe code and the industry is right to adopt it, it seems like a heavy lift to learn about heaps, stacks and pointers whilst also learning about ownership and lifetimes.
I don't really think that C++ is worth learning unless you have to work on an existing C++ codebase.
haolez|2 years ago
huijzer|2 years ago
Find a project that you think is important and work on it. Doesn’t matter which language. You can always switch. Knowing C++ will make you a better Rust programmer and vice versa.
xvilka|2 years ago
felipellrocha|2 years ago
userbinator|2 years ago
29athrowaway|2 years ago
Otherwise go back in time and use Cyclone.
Or use Ada or Rust.
zabzonk|2 years ago
pengaru|2 years ago
nathants|2 years ago
spoonfeeder006|2 years ago
pajko|2 years ago
nathants|2 years ago
cpp feels better to me now, but that could easily change.
rust-analyzer is a good experience, and cpp is not exactly fast, just faster.
revskill|2 years ago