3 ms·

> That all said it demonstrates the issues with a lot of new c++ features, in that even today new features are added without real thought to memory safety I wo

> That all said it demonstrates the issues with a lot of new c++ features, in that even today new features are added without real thought to memory safety I would go much further than that and claim that there are new C++ features added without real thought to other features. The C++ feature list is so incredibly vast that language maintainers / spec writers would need to know every little intricacy of other features to assert that a combination would still produce correct output.

AlotOfReading 4y ago
The problem is so much worse than that. Combining even the most fundamental features of the language (like UB and concurrency) leads to dark corners where even experts like Boehm aren't sure. The recent TR about safety-critical C++ is basically "don't use C++", which is correct, but not particularly helpful. The reality is that the standard simply isn't a good enough reference for what the language does. If you care about that, you need to treat programming in it as an experimental endeavor where you validate that your particular combination of code + toolchain + hardware does what you want. It's nice if the standard goes along for the ride, but not something you can rely on.
asveikau 4y ago
We're now 11 years from c++11, but I wanted to say lambdas are generally well thought out with respect to how memory management works in c++. The syntax for captures is weird at first, but once you appreciate that what it's doing is playing nice with copy constructors, it's good.
- gpderetta 4y ago
  Yes, lambdas are by far one of the best things to come out of the last 20 years of C++ development. They work exactly as a C++ programmer would expect (i.e. they are equivalent to a manually written struct overloading operator()). Coroutines, IMHO not so much; they are extremely complex and feel half baked. The problem is that there was so much discussion around them, that it was either that or nothing for the next 10 years.

AlotOfReading 4y ago

The problem is so much worse than that. Combining even the most fundamental features of the language (like UB and concurrency) leads to dark corners where even experts like Boehm aren't sure. The recent TR about safety-critical C++ is basically "don't use C++", which is correct, but not particularly helpful. The reality is that the standard simply isn't a good enough reference for what the language does. If you care about that, you need to treat programming in it as an experimental endeavor where you validate that your particular combination of code + toolchain + hardware does what you want. It's nice if the standard goes along for the ride, but not something you can rely on.

asveikau 4y ago

We're now 11 years from c++11, but I wanted to say lambdas are generally well thought out with respect to how memory management works in c++. The syntax for captures is weird at first, but once you appreciate that what it's doing is playing nice with copy constructors, it's good.

gpderetta 4y ago
Yes, lambdas are by far one of the best things to come out of the last 20 years of C++ development. They work exactly as a C++ programmer would expect (i.e. they are equivalent to a manually written struct overloading operator()). Coroutines, IMHO not so much; they are extremely complex and feel half baked. The problem is that there was so much discussion around them, that it was either that or nothing for the next 10 years.