5 ms·

> But most developers refuse to write anything more than C++98. I think the bigger mistake is equating memory safety with C++11 smart pointers. They buy you a

by duped 2y ago

> But most developers refuse to write anything more than C++98. I think the bigger mistake is equating memory safety with C++11 smart pointers. They buy you a little, but not the whole buffet. There are a lot of C++ developers that think memory safety is a skill issue and if you just use "best practices with C++11 or higher" then you get it - when evidence proves to the contrary.

bluGill 2y ago
Smart pointers, containers... There are plenty of best practices that would give memory safety but nobody uses them (and not for cases where in rust you would have to use unsafe and thus there is good reason). Which is why safety profiles are so interesting, they are something I should be able to turn on/off on a file by file basis and thus easily force the issue. Of course profiles don't exist yet (and what is proposed is very different from what this article is arguing against) and so it remains to be seen if they will be adopted and if so how useful they will be.
- steveklabnik 2y ago
  Safe C++ is also something you turn on file by file.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    What matters is tool support. Anything in the standard I expect to get tool support for (eventually), while everything else - lets just say I've been burned a lot by tools that are really nice for a few years but then they stop maintaining it and now I have to rewrite otherwise perfectly good code just so I can upgrade something else. Standard C++ isn't going anyplace soon and I feel confident that if something makes it into the standard tools will exist for a few decades at least (long enough for me to retire). Will Rust or Safe C++ still be around in 10 years, or just be another fad like so many other languages that got a lot of press for a few years and now are not used much (you probably cannot answer this other than a guess)
    - steveklabnik 2y ago
      I fully agree, this thread is about two possible futures for getting that support in the standard: Safe C++ and profiles.

by duped 2y ago

bluGill 2y ago

Smart pointers, containers... There are plenty of best practices that would give memory safety but nobody uses them (and not for cases where in rust you would have to use unsafe and thus there is good reason). Which is why safety profiles are so interesting, they are something I should be able to turn on/off on a file by file basis and thus easily force the issue. Of course profiles don't exist yet (and what is proposed is very different from what this article is arguing against) and so it remains to be seen if they will be adopted and if so how useful they will be.

steveklabnik 2y ago
Safe C++ is also something you turn on file by file.
- bluGill 2y ago
  What matters is tool support. Anything in the standard I expect to get tool support for (eventually), while everything else - lets just say I've been burned a lot by tools that are really nice for a few years but then they stop maintaining it and now I have to rewrite otherwise perfectly good code just so I can upgrade something else. Standard C++ isn't going anyplace soon and I feel confident that if something makes it into the standard tools will exist for a few decades at least (long enough for me to retire). Will Rust or Safe C++ still be around in 10 years, or just be another fad like so many other languages that got a lot of press for a few years and now are not used much (you probably cannot answer this other than a guess)
  - steveklabnik 2y ago
    I fully agree, this thread is about two possible futures for getting that support in the standard: Safe C++ and profiles.