[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

> Not to mention the weird conclusion that since no language has 0, that isn't the goal. I'm not sure I understand the logic that you shouldn't at least _try_ to not have any major security flaws.

He addressed that, the cost of making it to 0 would be too great (C++ would have to break backwards compatibility) so we should try and be inline with other languages instead.

I don't understand why you're acting as if he didn't make the point he made.

[saghm]

> He addressed that, the cost of making it to 0 would be too great (C++ would have to break backwards compatibility) so we should try and be inline with other languages instead.

> I don't understand why you're acting as if he didn't make the point he made.

My confusion is that I'd expect breaking backwards compatibility to either be completely off the table or for the amount of breakage allowed to be up for debate. If you're not willing to break compatibility at all, I feel like the goal should be to shoot as low as possible without breaking anything; if it's possible to get as low as other languages, why stop there? If you're willing to sacrifice some backwards compatibility, why not be willing to break it a little more to eliminate the last few sources of unsafety?

[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

it's not clear to me that you read or understood the article, all of your posts certainly feel as if you didn't.

He explained why 0 isn't the goal, you continue to act as if he didn't. I don't know where else this conversation can go without you going back and better understanding his actual point.

[saghm]

If the discussion requires that I find his explanation convincing rather than being able to think that it's not sufficient, then yeah, I guess there's nowhere else for it to go.