4 ms·

Pedantic clarity isn't helping your argument. The fact that you can choose to write C while calling a C++ compiler means people will always call it C/C++.

pencilguin 4y ago
It means that conclusions based on pretending it is a meaningful expression are tainted at the source, and thus may be presumed invalid without further examination. If you are coding C or pre-modern C++, then you are not coding modern C++, regardless of the compiler you happen to build with.
- sitkack 4y ago
  Your parent comment is an example Not True Scotsman [1] and circular logic. Your claim that modern C++ doesn't ship memory safety issues is a fallacy not worth my time for a rebuttal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
  - pencilguin 4y ago
    C++20 is an International Standard, superseding all previous Standards. Programs that use C++20 constructs in preference to pre-C++11 constructs are objectively more modern, to the exact degree they do.
    - samatman 4y ago
      Your position could be taken seriously if, and only if, there were a version of the language which doesn't contain all the cruft. As in, there are compilers which won't compile it. Instead, mid-90s C++, with all the leaks, is valid C++, 20 or otherwise. No true C++20 program is memory unsafe... unless you use a normal pointer, which is always available and will bork you just as hard as in C.
      - pencilguin 4y ago
        Where there is no need for a native pointer to be used, as almost everywhere, and no pointer is used, that code is objectively more modern than code that uses the pointer anyway. It is very rare to need to use a native pointer in modern C++ code. The need for one is strictly less common than a need for an unsafe block in Rust. Your argument applies equally well to Rust: any Rust program may include unsafe blocks. That any program may contain unsafe blocks does not make Rust implicitly unsafe. That a Rust program does (transitively) contain unsafe blocks does not make it an unsafe program. All substantial Rust programs at least transitively contain unsafe blocks. Thus, your argument is invalid.

pencilguin 4y ago

It means that conclusions based on pretending it is a meaningful expression are tainted at the source, and thus may be presumed invalid without further examination. If you are coding C or pre-modern C++, then you are not coding modern C++, regardless of the compiler you happen to build with.

sitkack 4y ago
Your parent comment is an example Not True Scotsman [1] and circular logic. Your claim that modern C++ doesn't ship memory safety issues is a fallacy not worth my time for a rebuttal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
- pencilguin 4y ago
  C++20 is an International Standard, superseding all previous Standards. Programs that use C++20 constructs in preference to pre-C++11 constructs are objectively more modern, to the exact degree they do.
  - samatman 4y ago
    Your position could be taken seriously if, and only if, there were a version of the language which doesn't contain all the cruft. As in, there are compilers which won't compile it. Instead, mid-90s C++, with all the leaks, is valid C++, 20 or otherwise. No true C++20 program is memory unsafe... unless you use a normal pointer, which is always available and will bork you just as hard as in C.
    - pencilguin 4y ago
      Where there is no need for a native pointer to be used, as almost everywhere, and no pointer is used, that code is objectively more modern than code that uses the pointer anyway. It is very rare to need to use a native pointer in modern C++ code. The need for one is strictly less common than a need for an unsafe block in Rust. Your argument applies equally well to Rust: any Rust program may include unsafe blocks. That any program may contain unsafe blocks does not make Rust implicitly unsafe. That a Rust program does (transitively) contain unsafe blocks does not make it an unsafe program. All substantial Rust programs at least transitively contain unsafe blocks. Thus, your argument is invalid.