People often point this out, silently implying that Rust is not really supported/usable on the lower tiers and that therefore those platform should stick to C. But that's ignoring that the situation is the same with gcc/clang: niche platforms get much less testing, and very niche ones might have bitrotted without anyone noticing. Gcc doesn't publish or adheres to a tiered platform list, but if it was using Rustc's definition it would be at most tier 2 (because tier 1 distributes official binaries, and prevents any tier1-breaking changes from being merged).
pjmlp|2 years ago
And in any case, C++ is always a better option than C regarding safety, when nothing else is available.
moltonel3x|2 years ago
Go's runtime can be a showstopper, especially for multi-language projects.
C++ may be better than C, but many people feel that Rust is even better.
Rust is already available in almost all scenarios, there's no need to wait for it.
yjftsjthsd-h|2 years ago
callalex|2 years ago
moltonel3x|2 years ago
While it's safe to assume that C gets a decent amount of use on every platform, you can't expect all platforms to be as well-supported as the major ones. Undoubtedly, some of those platforms would be listed as low-tier if the C compilers cared to maintain a platform tier list. But a platform being low-tier doesn't mean you shouldn't use that compiler there.
As for trusting Rust or C on niche platforms, C is so full of UB, platform-specific choices, and vendor extensions, that it's hard to ever fully know how well this or that project will work. Rust is much less surprising, if it works at all I expect it to fully work. I'd definitely pick Rust on niche platforms if I have the choice.
ammar2|2 years ago
pjmlp|2 years ago
While not as safe as Rust, it is definitly much safer than plain C.