4 ms·

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 whi

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.