3 ms·

> As an SRE/SysAdmin I struggle to believe that C or C++ can be written safely. It doesn’t make sense to talk about C and C++ together like that and the idea t

> As an SRE/SysAdmin I struggle to believe that C or C++ can be written safely. It doesn’t make sense to talk about C and C++ together like that and the idea that it would possibly maybe make sense to talk about two fairly different languages the same way is very much the root cause why some people consider it impossible to write “safe” C++. C and C++ probably have as much in common as C and Rust (both of these have pointers, so they must be the same) or as Haskell and Java (both of these have types/classes, so they must be the same).

gmjosack 11y ago
I knew I was going to get this comment when I wrote this... I only mention those two together as the previous options for low level, no runtime languages. Outside of Rust both C and C++ were independent options I've considered investing more deeply in.
topspin 11y ago
It does make sense to talk about C and C++ together like this. The fact is that writing high performance systems software means using systems interfaces, and until there is a portable interface that doesn't imply the use of malloc, pointers, etc., you can't escape the C legacy of C++ and the inherently unsafe product of it. Wherever you look in the C/C++ world you find this legacy (POSIX, OpenGL, OpenMAX, OpenMP, OpenCL, on and on) so no matter how determined you are to try to match Rust with `safe' C++ you get dragged back into C. The term "C/C++" is used and understood because it is 100% appropriate, and it will continue to be appropriate as long as unsafe C/C++ interfaces proliferate. Obviously Rust can't completely solve this problem either, but Rust at least provides a mechanism to isolate the C legacy parts behind tested and supposedly `safe' API interfaces, leaving the developer exclusively within his type+memory+data race safe environment. That is a superior model.

gmjosack 11y ago

I knew I was going to get this comment when I wrote this... I only mention those two together as the previous options for low level, no runtime languages. Outside of Rust both C and C++ were independent options I've considered investing more deeply in.

topspin 11y ago

It does make sense to talk about C and C++ together like this. The fact is that writing high performance systems software means using systems interfaces, and until there is a portable interface that doesn't imply the use of malloc, pointers, etc., you can't escape the C legacy of C++ and the inherently unsafe product of it. Wherever you look in the C/C++ world you find this legacy (POSIX, OpenGL, OpenMAX, OpenMP, OpenCL, on and on) so no matter how determined you are to try to match Rust with `safe' C++ you get dragged back into C. The term "C/C++" is used and understood because it is 100% appropriate, and it will continue to be appropriate as long as unsafe C/C++ interfaces proliferate. Obviously Rust can't completely solve this problem either, but Rust at least provides a mechanism to isolate the C legacy parts behind tested and supposedly `safe' API interfaces, leaving the developer exclusively within his type+memory+data race safe environment. That is a superior model.