|
|
|
|
|
by TimorousBestie
270 days ago
|
|
> In particular, the most harsh arguments against using C++, i.e. memory unsafeness, can be significantly mitigated when developing with a certain modern subset of the C++ language. So the quest for the one true “modern subset” of C++ continues. How do developers continue believing in this after a decade of the standards committee proving over and over again that they’re not interested in this and won’t contribute toward it? |
|
There are good reasons the standards committee doesn't make those sacrifices on your behalf, because ultimately there are tradeoffs there that the programmer is supposed to understand and have control over. However, there is an argument to be had about what the default "safety setting" should be and whether C++ makes a good choice. IMO that's actually the main difference between safety in Rust and C++, since you can make Rust just as unsafe as C++ if you want, only you need to explicitly mark your code as unsafe.
Also, I believe the C++ standards committee does care about this, which is why Profiles [1] are being considered.
[1] https://github.com/BjarneStroustrup/profiles