5 ms·
The title has potential to be a bit misleading, because as the article says, while Sean Baxter's proposal is not being continued, the committee is working on th
by LorenDB 1y ago
The title has potential to be a bit misleading, because as the article says, while Sean Baxter's proposal is not being continued, the committee is working on the Profiles proposal, which still will enable some level of safety. So C++ is still working towards safety, just not the Safe C++ safety.
- coffeeaddict1 1y agoThe safety story with Profiles is rather basic (almost laughable honestly) and hardly any improvement over what was already achievable with compiler flags and clang-tidy.
- TimorousBestie 1y agoC++ is working towards safety with the same enthusiasm with which I tackle AI-generated merge requests.
- loeg 1y agoSeems clear enough to me. The "Safe C++" proposal is not being continued. Profiles is not what was proposed in "Safe C++."
- pessimizer 1y agoThe quotes you have added are not in the title, and they would of course make it less ambiguous.
- TinkersW 1y agoHardware level safety will arrive first(see Apple support for Memory Integrity Enforcement ), not as fool proof as SafeC++/Rust but no need to change code...
- pjmlp 1y agoIt has been already here since 2015 on Solaris SPARC.