[gcp]

Other than out of bounds memory accesses and legacy code I feel there is not much that can go wrong.

If only we could stop at single-threaded applications :-)

I'm not convinced modern C++ stops all issues with pointers/iterators and ownership either. But it's hard to tell because every large-enough application inevitable has to interface with legacy pointer code.

[albinofrenchy]

The point about legacy pointer code is valid, but the benefit of the newer pointer / iterator / ownership stuff isn't really that it is in and of itself a magic bullet.

What it does do is make it easy to reason about how pointers are used across the application. Also worth noting that even with legacy libraries, you can wrap a given pointer with std::unique_ptr or std::shared_ptr and provide a custom deleter and maintain reasonable safety guarantees.

[gcp]

I do get it's easier. I use std::unique_ptr when interfacing with legacy code because I like that I need an explicit .release() to relinquish ownership. It's self-documenting.

But I was considering modern C++ compared to, for example Rust. I'm not sure if the memory safety issue that Rust solves still exists as strongly with a purely modern C++ codebase...but then again I never run into those either.

For threads it's no contest between Rust and C++, although TSAN is pretty damn nice.

[mempko]

Pointers are great! Without pointers, the web would not exist!