> I mean yes, the logical conclusion is that trying to backport safety onto C++ is impossible The logical conclusion is that what some people here seem to want

> I mean yes, the logical conclusion is that trying to backport safety onto C++ is impossible The logical conclusion is that what some people here seem to want is so radically different from C++ that they really just want an inherently just a different language altogether... which is fine. Nothing about this implies it's impossible to shoehorn C++ into something else (though that may still be true; I'm not sure). It just implies that another language should be considered when you want to prioritize memory safety, like maybe C# or Rust. (And nowhere here am I agreeing or disagreeing with the article.)