[pjmlp]

Ada, for example.

There is an open source version available in every system supported by gcc.

However C++17 is quite safe, provided one doesn't follow "write C with C++ compiler" idiom.

[pcwalton]

> However C++17 is quite safe, provided one doesn't follow "write C with C++ compiler" idiom.

No, it's not. There is no use-after-free protection among other things. It doesn't matter how much you write code like C or not: it's just not safe.

[pjmlp]

Then better stop using LLVM on Rust.

Until then, those comments only annoy those of us that happen to like Rust, but don't find it mature enough to replace C++ on the use cases we happen to care about.

[pcwalton]

I didn't say you can't write useful software in C++. I said that C++ software is not, in general, memory safe. Sometimes the benefits of a particular piece of software (for example, having an excellent production-grade optimizer) outweigh its drawbacks (for example, not being memory-safe).

I don't think you'd find a single LLVM developer who would claim that LLVM is memory safe. Giving invalid IR to LLVM and not running the verifier frequently segfaults it, for example...

[pjmlp]

I do agree with that, but that is exactly why I always mention the "C with C++ compiler" idiom, which is usually followed by your remark.

[rtpg]

safety is a spectrum, I think declaring it unsafe entirely might not be conducive to more interesting points