> Tells me he doesn't really "get it." People do not follow the core guidelines, and other languages are designed such that there aren't guidelines. I don't th

> Tells me he doesn't really "get it." People do not follow the core guidelines, and other languages are designed such that there aren't guidelines. I don't think this is true at all. There are already a few popular static code analyzers and lingers around which integrate quite nicely with your run of the mill build system. The purpose of these static code analyzers and linters is none other than enforce the adoption of stuff like the C++ core guidelines in a workflow a kin to unit testing. How do you explain that, based on your personal assertion that no one bothers with those? I mean, even popular C++ IDEs support those out-of-the-box. I really do not understand this absurd idea that those who care about safety drop everything they're doing to mindlessly migrate all things under the sun to a programming language, and the only ones not doing that are the poor incompetent fools who foolishly don't succumb to this cargo cult nonsense.