[wiseowise]

> Yes because then I don't have to spend hours writing esoteric spaghetti code to prove something to the compiler that is trivially known to be true.

And that’s exactly the reason why we need more safety in C++.

I’m terrified at amount of code in real world written with this mindset.

[virgilp]

At the same time, you should recognize that not all real code in the world is used to run planes & thermonuclear power plants. For a lot of the business software, it's actually fine if it's not perfectly safe. So if it's cheaper/ faster to develop it without paying the price of static safety checks, who is to say that this was a bad tradeoff?

I actually love the ideas that Rust brought forth. It definitely has a place in the ecosystem, and I'm glad to hear critical software is being rewritten in Rust! But that doesn't mean that C++ should copy it.

[AlotOfReading]

C++ doesn't permit you to write code that's not perfectly safe. By using a C++ compiler, you're promising that you will write safe code even if the compiler can't verify that, lest nasal demons and other misfortunes fall upon you. If your code isn't safe and you expect that to be fine, you're not writing C++. This is a discussion about C++, so the default assumption is that you'll pay the costs of safe code instead of inventing an ill-specified dialect that happens to do what you want when it's shoved into a C++ compiler.

If you think we should instead evolve C++ so that safety isn't mandatory I'm right there with you, but it's not where the language is today and that discussion has also been shut down by the evolution working group. Moreover, Bjarne's policies mean that telling the critical software people to go fuck off to a different language fundamentally isn't part of the plan either.

[virgilp]

It is kindof an interesting point you bring up here. However, it's also true that languages (and software in general) are what people make of it, not necessarily what their creators intended. I do believe that the stuff that happens to do what you want when shoved into a C++ compiler _is_, for all intents and purposes, C++. And I kinda' think/feel that that is also what the committee is saying - "we want C++ to keep doing that, rather than evolve into a safer thing that is no longer C++"

[AlotOfReading]

I get the argument, but the community argument doesn't actually change anything. No compiler will guarantee any particular behavior in the presence of memory safety issues. Very few programs happily tolerate random memory corruption or race conditions, etc.

[andrewprock]

Run valgrind on any large successful code base and you will find tons of memory corruption. It just happens to occur in places where it does not matter.

[lmm]

> For a lot of the business software, it's actually fine if it's not perfectly safe.

Is it fine if it silently gives the wrong answer? If so, why are you bothering with the software at all?

In my experience all nontrivial C++ codebases have silent memory corruption bugs (at least when built with popular compilers).

[virgilp]

Well, let's put it like this:

- Webkit, GCC, and a few others are non-trivial C++ codebases that are (I argue) useful.

- In your experience, since they are non-trivial, they have silent memory corruption bugs (i.e. they are not "perfectly safe").

Does this answer the "why bother with software at all" question?

[SpaceNugget]

Most C++ developers care greatly about the quality of their code, and suggesting that since the code isn't in a life threatening situation like a flight controller or medical device it can be buggy with no repercussions is pretty silly.

Your examples of GCC and Webkit are both projects that have spent enormous amounts of effort to be as memory safe as they can be, and have both had many memory safety related CVEs in the past. As was already pointed out, you still have to pay the cost of engineering memory safe code, even when your compiler/static analysis doesn't have your back.

[virgilp]

I was not saying anywhere that people don't or shouldn't care about the quality of their code. I was just pointing out that, whether we like it or not, "quality" is just one of the factors that goes into the mix of "things to optimize of". Other factors like "time" and "effort" and "efficiency" and "compatibility" and even trivial stuff like "familiarity" play a role - or else you'd have formal proofs written in TLA+ or Alloy or the like, before writing any system; And you'd have people immediately switch to safer languages like Rust (which is obviously not happening at scale).

The GCC/Webkit examples were not the best examples, but were nevertheless easily available examples that made one particular point: OP's comment was self-contradictory.

[wiseowise]

> Most C++ developers care greatly about the quality of their code

Not at our org. Though I know a couple of die hard fans that will eat you for lunch if you do something stupid or ugly.

[lmm]

Webkit, as I understand it, is not really a C++ codebase built with a popular compiler, it's a codebase that follows its own significantly stricter standards and has a lot of additional tooling to avoid bugs.

And I'd say that even with all that additional effort, it has a level of bugs that's not "fine". Indeed, per the article, I suspect that the maintainers of Webkit are some of the people pushing to make C++ more Rust-like.

[virgilp]

Webkit TBH wasn't a great example, since it's arguably a piece of software that would benefit from being developed in Rust. That said, the point is that we don't need "one language to rule them all" - C++ has made some tradeoffs, that will not be ideal in all circumstances/for all projects. Trying to change the tradeoffs because of a handful of projects (like Webkit) would be better suited to new tradeoffs is not necessarily the right choice for the language itself, or its community of users. Things are not so simple, "There are 2 factions of C++, those that agree with me and are right, and those that disagree and are wrong".

[lmm]

I think silent memory corruption is almost never a good tradeoff. (The one possible exception is something like a single-player videogame, where unknown corruption might be less bad than crashing - but even then, avoiding having the situation come up in the first place is better). An argument used to be made (if not in so many words) that accepting a certain amount of occasional memory corruption was a necessary tradeoff for performance; it's an argument that I was always dubious about, and now Rust has proven it completely false.

Fundamentally I don't think this is a case where C++ makes a deliberate design tradeoff that makes sense for some projects. I think it's just a bad design choice (not even a choice as such - it wasn't a question that was considered at all when C++ was first designed) that should be corrected. Sometimes there is a right answer.