[systems]

I think, that complexity cannot be eliminated, but it can be hidden and distributed, using the right abstraction

that being said C++ being a big language adds complexity (stemming from the language itself, i.e. stemming from the tool)

So you can use a complex tool, to make a complex task simple, or a simple tool and keep the task more complex, requiring more steps etc..

But with C++ its a complex tools, that while it takes some complexity from the task, I think it adds enough complexity, that could outweigh the complexity it reduces

We need better languages, C++ is not it

[brabel]

> that being said C++ being a big language

Rust has become fairly big now, no? Is there some objective metric that can show Rust is a "smaller" language (I bet it is, but I don't think it's by a lot)?

[steveklabnik]

There’s not really any metric of a language being objectively “big” or “small” but I could point at several features where the Rust feature is significantly less complex than the C++ one. Additionally, C++ has more features that Rust doesn’t than the reverse.