35
The empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ blueprint (www.theregister.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by cmeerw@programming.dev to c/cpp@programming.dev
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] lysdexic@programming.dev -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The only (arguably*) baseless claim in that quote is this part:

You do understand you're making that claim on the post discussing the proposal of Safe C++ ?

And to underline the absurdity of your claim, would you argue that it's impossible to write a"hello, world" program in C++ that's not memory-safe? From that point onward, what would it take to make it violate any memory constraints? Are those things avoidable? Think about it for a second.

[-] BB_C@programming.dev 6 points 2 weeks ago
  • C++ offers no guaranteed memory safety.
  • A fictional safe C++ that would inevitably break backwards compatibility might as well be called Noel++, because it's not the same language anymore.
  • If that proposal ever gets implemented (it won't), neither the promise of guaranteed memory safety will hold up, nor any big C++ project will adopt it. Big projects don't adopt the (rollingly defined) so-called modern C++ already, and that is something that is a part of the language proper, standardized, and available via multiple implementations.

would you argue that it’s impossible to write a"hello, world" program in C++

bent as expected

This proposal is just a part of a damage control campaign. No (supposedly doable) implementation will ever see the light of day. Ping me when this is proven wrong.

this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
35 points (94.9% liked)

C++

1732 readers
1 users here now

The center for all discussion and news regarding C++.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Nihili0@programming.dev
lysdexic@programming.dev