cmeerw@programming.dev to C++@programming.devEnglish · edit-23 days agoThe empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ blueprintwww.theregister.comexternal-linkmessage-square33fedilinkarrow-up136arrow-down12
arrow-up134arrow-down1external-linkThe empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ blueprintwww.theregister.comcmeerw@programming.dev to C++@programming.devEnglish · edit-23 days agomessage-square33fedilink
minus-squareFizzyOrange@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up9arrow-down1·2 days agoYeah but I have written a lot of Rust and I have yet to use a single unsafe block. Saying “but… unsafe!” is like saying Python isn’t memory safe because it has ctypes, or Go isn’t memory safe because of its unsafe package.
minus-squareFalconMirage@jlai.lulinkfedilinkarrow-up1·26 minutes agoYou don’t have to use unsafe C++ functions either C++ is technically safe if you follow best practices The issue, to me, is that people learn older versions of the language first, and aren’t aware of the better ways of doing stuff. IMO people should learn the latest C++ version first, and only look at the older types of implementation when they come across them
minus-squareDark Arc@social.packetloss.gglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down6·2 days agoSee my reply to funtrek’s reply.
Yeah but I have written a lot of Rust and I have yet to use a single
unsafeblock.Saying “but… unsafe!” is like saying Python isn’t memory safe because it has
ctypes, or Go isn’t memory safe because of itsunsafepackage.You don’t have to use unsafe C++ functions either
C++ is technically safe if you follow best practices
The issue, to me, is that people learn older versions of the language first, and aren’t aware of the better ways of doing stuff.
IMO people should learn the latest C++ version first, and only look at the older types of implementation when they come across them
See my reply to funtrek’s reply.