[futurix]

In your example, the cause of the collapse would be that developer drove a tank onto the bridge and didn't bother to check the weight limits beforehand.

If you forgot to initialise the variable before using it - it's your problem, not the problem of the language. This is a feature of C++, not a bug. It is well documented, it is expected, and it is there for a good reason. And if you are running into this issue all the time, perhaps C++ is not for you.

[staticassertion]

> In your example, the cause of the collapse would be that developer drove a tank onto the bridge and didn't bother to check the weight limits beforehand.

I don't see how, at all, and you haven't addressed how this somehow makes the C++ developer different from an engineer.

I think your analogy is absolutely imprecise.

And the people on the bridge aren't going to care.

> If you forgot to initialise the variable before using it - it's your problem, not the problem of the language.

Wrong! It's very clearly not the developer's problem, because they don't take responsibility. It's the end user's problem, because they're the ones who get hacked.

> It is well documented, it is expected

Oh, please. As if any C++ developer can spot every instance of UB.

> it is there for a good reason

Is it? This is an unfounded statement. Is there ever a good reason to read from an uninitialized variable? It's UB, so it seems like the language is telling you explicitly that it is not a good idea. But the language gives you not way of formally verifying that you don't.

> And if you are running into this issue all the time, perhaps C++ is not for you.

Alternatively, perhaps C++ is not for any human, as it's clearly far too complicated to reason about.