4 ms·

The discipline involved with writing safe C++ code is somewhat different from the discipline involved with writing safe code in some dynamic language. In C++,

The discipline involved with writing safe C++ code is somewhat different from the discipline involved with writing safe code in some dynamic language. In C++, it's mostly just a matter of understanding the language features you're using, and then avoiding ones that can be harmful in some cases, often in favor of much safer alternative approaches. The C++ compiler will still catch many other types of problems at compile time that wouldn't necessarily be noticed (assuming they even are noticed by the developer(s)) until runtime when using a dynamic language. The safety net offered by the C++ compiler may not be cast as wide as that of Rust or Haskell, but it's still there, and it does catch many common issues. And I think it's wrong to say that Rust and Haskell don't require discipline; they do. It's still easy to write inefficient or unmaintainable code in those languages, for example. You still need to know what you're doing, and how to use the functionality that they offer, in order to avoid problems like that. Now, the discipline needed when using a dynamic language not only includes the discipline needed when using C++ (that is, "don't do stupid stuff"), but it also includes not making trivial mistakes like typos, or missing some changes when refactoring, and so on. Much, much more discipline is needed when writing code in dynamic languages. That is the kind of discipline that can be automated away to a very large extent, however. Personally, I do think it's silly and wasteful to willingly take on responsibility for ensuring that sort of discipline for anything but the smallest scripts. So, yes, I will speak out against it and those who suggest it's acceptable, especially in larger systems.

pcwalton 13y ago
> In C++, it's mostly just a matter of understanding the language features you're using, and then avoiding ones that can be harmful in some cases, often in favor of much safer alternative approaches. The number of security bugs that every large C++ codebase sees suggests otherwise. C++ is neither safe in practice nor in theory. (I can come up with many ways in which modern idiomatic C++ can be broken, often in an exploitable manner.)
masklinn 13y ago
> And I think it's wrong to say that Rust and Haskell don't require discipline; they do. It's still easy to write inefficient or unmaintainable code in those languages, for example. Yes, but the subject was correctness and the discussion was about the fact that these languages makes it easier to write correct code than e.g. Go or C++.

pcwalton 13y ago

> In C++, it's mostly just a matter of understanding the language features you're using, and then avoiding ones that can be harmful in some cases, often in favor of much safer alternative approaches. The number of security bugs that every large C++ codebase sees suggests otherwise. C++ is neither safe in practice nor in theory. (I can come up with many ways in which modern idiomatic C++ can be broken, often in an exploitable manner.)

masklinn 13y ago

> And I think it's wrong to say that Rust and Haskell don't require discipline; they do. It's still easy to write inefficient or unmaintainable code in those languages, for example. Yes, but the subject was correctness and the discussion was about the fact that these languages makes it easier to write correct code than e.g. Go or C++.