• lysdexic@programming.devM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    The only (arguably*) baseless claim in that quote is this part:

    You do understand you’re making that claim on the post discussing the proposal of Safe C++ ?

    And to underline the absurdity of your claim, would you argue that it’s impossible to write a"hello, world" program in C++ that’s not memory-safe? From that point onward, what would it take to make it violate any memory constraints? Are those things avoidable? Think about it for a second before saying nonsense about impossibilities.

    • BB_C@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago
      • C++ offers no guaranteed memory safety.
      • A fictional safe C++ that would inevitably break backwards compatibility might as well be called Noel++, because it’s not the same language anymore.
      • If that proposal ever gets implemented (it won’t), neither the promise of guaranteed memory safety will hold up, nor any big C++ project will adopt it. Big projects don’t adopt the (rollingly defined) so-called modern C++ already, and that is something that is a part of the language proper, standardized, and available via multiple implementations.

      would you argue that it’s impossible to write a"hello, world" program in C++

      bent as expected


      This proposal is just a part of a damage control campaign. No (supposedly doable) implementation will ever see the light of day. Ping me when this is proven wrong.