4 ms·

It's not like C++ is always the only alternative, see e.g. Rust which is way simpler

• lumb63 5y ago
  I agree that Rust is simpler than C++ (in some ways), but I’d say it is far more complex than C.
  • Thiez 5y ago
    That depends on how you define complexity. It is far easier to write a working program without memory leaks, various types of vulnerabilities, and undefined behavior in Rust than it is in C.
    • phendrenad2 5y ago
      It depends on what level of security you need. If you're writing a 3D game engine, a minor memory leak probably isn't worth the extra time required to write it in Rust. Even if you're writing a kernel, fuzzing and formal verification can get you 99.999 of the way to the guarantees of Rust.
      • Thiez 5y ago
        I feel like writing Rust is a whole lot faster and less error-prone than writing something in C. But even assuming that it's slower, it's definitely much faster than writing C and doing formal verification. Naturally formal verification can help with other properties besides memory safety, and as far as I am aware Rust is still lacking a formal semantics so when you go all-in on formal methods C can reach a provable level of quality that Rust currently cannot. But very few people develop software that way.