4 ms·

> for example, Google! Google's C++ coding standards have done tremendous harm to the C++ community by perpetuating obsolete programming practices like two-pha

> for example, Google! Google's C++ coding standards have done tremendous harm to the C++ community by perpetuating obsolete programming practices like two-phase initialization and lossy error reporting. Google's C++ standards also teach people that it's okay to use the STL and not worry about allocation failure, which hurts program robustness generally. I'm not the only one who thinks so: see https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140503193653-3046051-why-google-style-guide-for-c-is-a-deal-breaker https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140503193653-3046051-why-go... My C++ code is exceptional, modern, and robust, and anyone using -fno-exceptions can go fly a kite.

pcwalton 11y ago
I think it's hard to argue that Google is in the wrong by not wanting to rely on std::bad_alloc for dealing with OOM. > Google's C++ standards also teach people that it's okay to use the STL and not worry about allocation failure, which hurts program robustness generally. Actually, I think making std::bad_alloc call std::terminate improves program robustness by a lot over trying to gracefully recover from all allocation failure. Certainly it reduces security vulnerabilities.
- quotemstr 11y ago
  > Certainly it reduces security vulnerabilities. So does the power button. You can't get away with justifying breaking arbitrary functionality in the name of security.