3 ms·
Is this a response to some specific set of proposals? I know there's been a lot of general angst / misunderstanding over C++ memory safety.
by KerrAvon 3y ago
Is this a response to some specific set of proposals? I know there's been a lot of general angst / misunderstanding over C++ memory safety.
- tempodox 3y agoWhat's to misunderstand? There is no memory safety in C++.
- IshKebab 3y agoIt's a response to Rust. Rust is significantly better than C++, and most importantly it's the first language that could actually replace C++ for the things C++ is generally used for. I guess the C++ community is coming to terms with not being the top dog of "zero-cost abstraction" languages anymore. Really I think it's too late for C++. They had literal decades to fix very basic flaws, and they just haven't done it. Accidental octal literals. Case fall-through. Missing `return`s. Accidental string literal addition. The whole module system mess. They focused way too much on adding complex features and not at all on fixing footguns. As a result C++ is painful and dangerous. Too late to fix IMO.