[dataflow]

What you're actually arguing seems to be "why I like Rust more than C++", not arguing why "clang-tidy has false positives, and thus the comparison isn't apples to apples then".

Clearly the positives can be just as false in Rust as in C++. Your actual objection is that anyone arguing that any feature of Clang can measure up to the corresponding feature of Rust at present is automatically disqualified from making that argument because... Clang's past "taints" its present? Like an original sin of sorts, but in programming? ("Apple" forbidden against comparison?)

[ufmace]

I don't think it's about being tainted. It's that there's a bunch of C++ code out there already in Production in a ton of places that doesn't pass those checks, and may or may not actually be safe. It would be a ton of work that may not produce any end-user value for any C++ project to switch over to that.

Meanwhile, Rust has always had those checks, so there can't be any Rust code in Production that doesn't pass them that would be painful to switch over.

[estebank]

It's not about an original sin, it's about the practicalities of changing the default behaviour without pissing off your users.

[dataflow]

Sure, but again, that's an argument for why you dislike C++, not an argument for why false positives in that Clang-Tidy check somehow disqualify it from being compared to the corresponding checks in Rust, especially when they both have false positives.