[jb1991]

Some of the C++ code in this article has not been idiomatic in over a decade, and would be considered a code smell today. The language has evolved into quite a different language than when it was first created. As soon as I saw all of those raw pointers and direct pointer access, it was clear that at least part of this article should be taken with a grain of salt.

The other obvious issue with the overall perspective is that C and C++ are being thrown together directly as if somehow they’re nearly the same language, but they are really very far apart nowadays.

[debugnik]

I was about to call out that the code is supposed to be C and not C++, but I double checked and I realised it actually says std::atomic<int>, not atomic_int!

[jb1991]

Exactly, this is very old C++ on display in this article. It’s certainly not as safe as a language like Rust, but quite a lot of undefended behavior and things that will shoot yourself in the foot have been changed over the last 10 years.

Most C++ today will be immediately obvious and not accidentally mixed up with C.

[pjmlp]

Unfortunely most C++ today keeps making use of C idioms, including at companies with seat at WG21 table.