3 ms·
But this wasn't talking about using other languages with more of a safety focus. It was talking about using newer features of C++ that are meant to support safe
by mumblemumble 6y ago
But this wasn't talking about using other languages with more of a safety focus. It was talking about using newer features of C++ that are meant to support safer programming. Most of these come in the form of abstractions with non-zero cost.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoOK, but... I see three options. 1) Use the non-zero-cost abstraction to do X safely. 2) Write the equivalent abstraction to do X safely, which will cost you the time to write and will probably be buggier than C++'s version. 3) Don't do X. The fourth option - do X but in an unsafe way - should not be on the table for a professional developer. Now, C++'s philosophy is that you can't write your own thing to do X more efficiently than C++'s builtin version. They may not perfectly achieve that in all cases, but they come fairly close. That plus bugs means that I won't reach for option 2 unless I have really good reason to think I can do better. That leaves using the builtins to do X safely, or not doing X. At least that's how it looks to me...